k 



\3 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



GlinjT...... - GqiQngljt l^a 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



'%% 



\ 



\ 



SWEENEY'S SERMONS, 



-BY- 



JOHN S. SWEENEY. 



WITH A SKKTCH OF 



THE AUTHOR'S LIKE, 



-BY- 



AN INTIMATE FRIEND. 



2^i>oy^ 



I 



nashville, tenn.: 
Gospel Advocate Puhlishinu Co. 
1892, 







("opyrifiht, 1892, 
(iosi'Ki. Advocate I^ib. Co. 



PUBLISHERS' PREFACE. 



Christianity came from God by revelation through in- 
spired men. '' Holy men of God" who taught the Chris- 
tian religion to the world ** spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost/' ^^ not in the words which man's wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." The 
teaching of those inspired men of God has come down to 
us in the holy scriptures, and our province is simply to 
learn and to follow what is set forth in the Bible. In the 
very nature of the case, therefore, we are disciples, or 
learners, in so far as we are anything at all in matters of 
religion. 

There are no privileged orders in Christianity. We 
are all equally near to Go^ and the Bible. No class of 
men have any right to stand between any other man 
or class of men and the Bible as authoritative expounders 
or interpreters of the holy scriptures. No man is under 
any obligation to accept another man's understanding of 
the Bible as the basis of his religious action. Every man 
is at liberty to state what he understands the Bible to 
teach on any subject, but no one else is bound by such 
statements, in respect to his own faith and action in relig- 
ious matters. 

** Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of 
God," and every man should study the word of God for 

3 



4 PUBLISHER S PREFACE. 

himself aud formulate a faith of his own. Every man^s 
faith, when thus formed, is binding upon himself as the rule 
of his own action in matters of religion, but is not to be 
imposed upon any one else. '' Who art thou that judgest 
another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or 
falleth ;" *' for we must all appear before the judgment seat 
of Christ ; that every one may receive the things done in 
his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be 
good or bad." 

In this book of sermons the reader will find a clear 
statement of what the author understands the scriptures to 
teach on several vital points of the Christian religion. 
Mr. Sweeney has made the scriptures a special study for 
many years, and his recognized ability and reputation 
as a preacher entitle him to a patient hearing. We be- 
speak for him the attention which his talent aud experi- 
ence and the importance of his themes should command. 
All that can be asked for him, however, is that his posi- 
tions be carefully considered in the light of scripture 
teaching. Every reader is conceded the right and urged 
to exercise the privilege to accept or reject each position 
the author takes according as it agrees with or departs 
from the teaching of the holy scriptures. 

The publishers assume all responsibility for the name, 
or title, of the book. The author felt disinclined to put 
forth the volume under the name of *' Sweeney's Ser- 
mons," but it was our preference and he gracefully 
yielded. We make this explanation cheerfully because it 
is due to him. Gospel Advocate Pl^blishing Co, 

Nashville, Tenn., April 15, 1892. 



©©Mt©Flts. 



Life of John S. Sweeney 7-62 

SEEMON I. 
The Simplicity that is in Christ 63-80 

SERMON II. 
The Three Sides op Christianity. 81-92 

SERMON III. 
The Church of God— Its Foundation .. .... 93-110 

SERMON IV. 
The Word op Truth 111-125 

SERMON V. 
Our Aim 126-147 

SERMON VI. 
Regeneration 148-160 

SERMON VII. 
Acts op Apostles . . 161-177 

SERMON VIII. 
The More Excellent Way 178-191 

SERMON IX. 
Paul's Answer to King Agrippa. . 192-205 

SERMON X. 
Action op Ba ptism 20(i-227 

SERMON XI. 
Baptism for Remission op Sins 228-249 

SERMON XII. 
What Must I Do to be Saved 250-264 

SERMON XIII. 
Infant Baptism 265-295 

SEKMON XIV. 

A Plea for tup Ciiukcii op (iod 29(>-.'»04 

(V) 



SWEENEY'S SERMONS. 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 

IT has been most truthfully said that *' the life of a 
great man in a great period of the world's history is a sub- 
ject to command the attention of every thoughtful mind." 

The subject of the present sketch is undoubtedly a great 
man by whatever standard of true greatness. he maybe 
measured. 

Physically, he is a perfect specimen of the highest type 
of the race. Exactly six feet high, weighing 220 pounds, 
without any adipose tissue whatever to burden him, he is a 
modern embodiment of the old Greek idea of strength, 
which found its expression in Hercules. Intellectually, 
we find in him the crystal luminosity of the brilliant, all 
of which is subordinate to a deeply religious and moral 
nature that has always been the ruling principle of his 
life. 

That he has lived in stirring times and has been a leader 
in one of the grandest of moral revolutions, cannot be 
.gainsaid by any one conversant with the moral aud spirit- 
ual history of the race. 

Each generation seems to be endowed by the Almighty 
ruler with some special mission. At one time it is to ofl'er 
up itself a sacrifice upon the altar of persecution ; at 
another, to stand firmly against some great and growing 
heresy that threatens the life and liberty of the cluirch, or 
to bring out of obscurity and restore to its original place 
some lost sight-of truth or princi[)]e. To another, it is 
given to cry out against an unholy alliance with the state 

(7) 



8 bweeney's sermons. 

or the world, to call into exercise the latent forces of a 
rich hut iiulitierent church hy proclaiming the duty of a 
world wide evangeli.sm. 

The special work of the disciples, or Christians, under 
God, was to call the religious world back from the tradi- 
tions of men to * ' the law and the testimony ; " to urge 
the prompt and hearty observance of everything taught 
as necessary to the salvation of the sinner, and the devel- 
opment of the Christian, and jealously guard against the 
enforcement of anything as a test of fellowship that did 
not have either an apostolic precept, example or necessary 
inference. It was an attempt to* exalt Christ above party, 
and his word above human creeds ; to illustrate the prac- 
ticability of Christian union upon New Testament faith 
and practices; to build a church of Christ without denom- 
inational name or other barrier to Christian union, w^hose 
terms of fellowship should be as broad as the conditions of 
salvation and identical with them; to lead alien sin- 
ners to Christ in the clear light of New Testament teach- 
ing and example; to work with all other Christian work- 
ers as far as possible in extending Christ's reign among 
men by seeking to promote the union for which he prayed. 
With such a cause and such a champion, the world might 
readily expect the noble Christian life of which the fol-- 
lowing pages are but a very imperfect portrayal. 

John Steele Sweeney was born near Liberty, Casey 
County, Kentucky, September 4th, 1834, A. D. His 
father, G. E. Sweeney, was, as his name indicates, of 
Irish descent — his grand-father. Job Sweeney, being 
brought to America when only a few years of age. Both 
his father and grand-father have been preachers in the 
great \vork of the restoration from its earliest incipiency. 
His mother, Talitha Campbell, was of Scotch descent, her 



LIFE OF JOHN 8. SWEENEY. \) 

father, John Campbell, coming to this country when only 
a few years of age from near Aberdeen, Scotland. She 
was a woman of limited education, but possessed a very 
strong and vigorous mind, a woman of rare beauty in her 
youth, and endowed with the sterling qualities of her 
Scotch ancestry. She was largely instrumental in shaping 
the character and destiny of young John, and much of his 
manhood and moral worth is due to the training of her 
loving hand. Deeply religious in her nature, she instilled 
the same spirit of veneration for, and love of the truth, into 
his young soul. 

She was, moreover, very affectionate and strongly 
attached to her children, and her serene old age has been 
made bright with the reflection that she brought all her 
children through the perils of youth to honorable and use- 
ful manhood and womanhood without a single ^' black 
sheep in the family fold." 

John was educated in the common schools of his time, 
which then were very common indeed, and meagerly sup- 
plied with the appliances of the present day, but grand 
training fields for the development of the two great prin- 
ciples of self-reliance and respect for others taught upon 
the play-grounds of the log cabin universities of that day. 
He was a great reader, and studied the few books of his 
time with much eagerness, making a specialty of the study 
of the meaning and use of words, and to-day, lie has few 
equals, and probably no superiors in effective and proper 
handling of the words he uses. He spent his time out of 
school in the hard toil of the farm life to which he was 
bred, lightened by the simple recreations of his time, such 
as fishing, gunning, fox-hunting and the like. 
THE *'mose" story. 

Altliougli the Baptists and Methodists wcmh^ numerous, 



10 SWEENEY*8 SERMONS. 

and the notion of getting religion suddenly and almost 
miraculously, at what was called the *' mourner's bench," 
was very prevalent during his boyhood and early man- 
hood, our subject never had any faith in that way of 
becoming a Christian. He, however, often attended the 
revival meetings of the time, and was a close observer of 
what was taught and done on such occasions. This writer 
has several times heard him tell of one of these revivals at 
which his cousin, Moses Sweeney, got religion. He and 
*' cousin Mose," as he called him, went to the meeting 
together. It was a Baptist meeting. It had gone on some 
time, and the excitement was running high. A great 
many young people had got religion, and many were 
seeking. His cousin was, as he said, '^ a Baptist, dyed in 
the wool." He saw the prevailing feeling was working on 
him. When they had been attending the meeting two or 
three days, Mose took him aside one day and said, *' John, 
I believe if you will take care of the horses," (which were 
hitched in the woods surrounding the meeting house) ''I'll 
try for it to-night." John assured him that he would, so 
Mose went forward. Mose was as honest as the davs were 
long, and John watched the matter with a good deal of 
interest to see how he would come through. The preach- 
ers and workers all came round ])y turns and talked to 
and prayed for Mose. Every time he was asked how he 
was getting on for the fii^st and second sessions, his answer 
was, ''Well, I am doing no good, sir." After awhile 
there were several came through all around Mose, with a 
great shout, Close's sweet-heart among others, and Mose 
was greatly affected by the feeling that was running high 
and wild. One of the preachers came up and slapping 
him on the back, asked, ''Well, Mose, how are you feel- 
ing now?" " Better," said he, ''in fact, I believe I am 



LJFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 11 

about through the worst of it/' In a few minutes Mose 
arose, smiled, looked better, but was not so demonstrative 
as many others. John, of course, congratulated him, and 
afterward, seeking his opportunity, he asked him, ''Mose, 
do you think I could get it?" '^ Nothing in the world to 
hinder you, once you get to the point where you can 
just entirely give way to it," said Mose, confidently. Some 
time after this, Josiah Waller, a preacher of the restor- 
ation, visited Liberty, and preached two or three weeks. 
During this meeting, our subject confessed the Savior and 
was baptized in Green River, that runs hard by the little 
town. It was in August, 1850 or 1851. ^* Cousin Mose" 
was among the first to congratulate him, saying: '^ That 
way looks to me entirely too simple and business like, John, 
but no doubt it is all right, if you have given way to it." 
He began teaching in the common schools of the neigh- 
borhood, and displayed great capacity for governing, even 
triumphing over the universal tendency at that time to 
*'turn the teacher out " at Christmas time. It was dur- 
ing one of these seasons that he first manifested his great 
ability for discussion. It was very customary then to hold 
weekly public debates upon some simple proposition, gener- 
ally of an entirely theoretic nature. On one occasion the 
subject was : '' Which has the greater right to complain of 
ill treatment at the hands of the white man — the Indian or 
the negro?" It so happened that young Sweeney was 
upon the side of the negro, and his treatment of the ques- 
tion was of such a vigorous nature as to arouse both the 
indignation and fears of the slave holding population. 
Many attempts were made to induce him to retract his 
sentiments, but this he sturdily refused to do and it was 
monthR before the stormy scene had subsided. Even the 
poor slaves got hold of sonie of the brave words he had 



12 Sweeney's sermons. 

spoken in their behalf, and for a long time the whites had 
fearful visiont? of an uprising among the blacks. 

About this time, being about 19 years of age, he en- 
tered Hancock Academy at Columbia, where he studied 
law and at the same time pursued his academic course. 
During his stay here, occurred an incident which at the 
same time illustrates his love of the weaker side and his 
propensity for good humor, that has characterized his 
whole life. There was a large ''bully "of a boy work- 
ing in the neighborhood of the play ground, who gener- 
ally found it convenient to visit it when the pupils were 
at play. It was not long till it was generally observed 
that he seemed to have a spite at one of the pupils, a boy 
much smaller than himself, and he took every occasion to 
gratify it by shaking, striking or otherwise annoying him. 
This had run to some length, when John, with another 
young man, determined to come to the rescue of the 
weaker boy. They contrived their plan, and to carry it 
out, secured an old-fashioned horse-pistol, and loading it 
to the brim with red berries of the plant known to bota- 
nists as Phytolacca decandra, but better known to the 
boys of the play-ground as "poke berries," they hid it 
in a stump on the play-ground, and instructed their small 
companion how to use it, promising to see him through. 
The next day the bully was on the ground as usual, and 
as usual, insulted the boy again, who at once drew him- 
self proudly up and informed his overbearing neighbor 
that this conduct must stop, or there would be trouble. 
At this assertion the bully bore down upon his little ene- 
my, threatening dire punishment. The little fellow^ 
retreated till he came to the stump, and then halted, and 
grasping the pistol, leveled it at his adversary and spat- 
tered him from head to foot with the ''poke berries." 



LIFE OP JOHN S. SWEENEY. 13 

The cowardly fellow, seeing the red spots made by the 
juice of the berries, concluded that he was mortally 
wounded, and sank dow^n at once, exclaiming that he was 
dead. This was the opportunity sought and the two boys 
who knew about the berries, ran at once with protestations 
of great sympathy, and, carrying him to the old wooden 
pump, gave him a thorough drenching under the pretense 
of washing away the blood. The cold bath had the effect 
of so reviving the fellow that he sat up and began looking 
for his wounds. To the surprise of all who were not in 
the secret, it was found that he had none. The fellow 
left with a dim impression that somehow he had been vic- 
timized. Years after, when Bro. Sweeney was engaged 
in a discussion in the State of Missouri, a gentleman came 
forward and spoke to him familiarly as ''John." Bro. 
Sweeney could not place him even by name, and the gen- 
tleman drew him aside and said: ''I am the fellow that 
was shot with poke berries. I am deacon of the church 
here, have a fine farm and nice family, and think I enjoy 
the esteem of this community. You may tell anything in 
my previous history but the poke berry story. That 
would ruin me even now." Of course Bro. S. assured 
him, and they were friends. 

In the fall of 1854, he removed to the State of Illinois 
and began the practice of law at Greenfield, Green Co. 
Beginning the battle of life poor and friendless in a 
strange commuunity, at a very early age he was enabknl 
by his fixed principles of honor and rectitude, to oecu})y 
a leading position at tlie bar, and it was not long until lie 
had won the confidence of the new community and ostnl)- 
lished himself as an important factor in its future growtli 
and prosperity. He was tireless in the pursuit of infor- 
mation concerning his cases, and would oxj)lore every field 



14 Sweeney's sermons. 

that seemed to promise illustration or informatiou. 
Although very positive in the statement of his case, he 
was always a gentleman and treated his colleagues in such 
a manner iis to sol'ten the bitterness of their defeat, by his 
good humor, power in speech, and generous open handed 
manner of conducting his cause. Thus prepared and with 
his power as an advocate, and wisdom as a counsellor, 
combined with a remarkable elocutionary and histrionic 
force, he bade fair to stand in the front rank of the ablest 
lawyers of the West, which he would have undoubtedly 
realized, had not Infinite Providence been planning another 
pathway for his feet to travel, and another crown for him 
to win in life's great conflict. 

The community at this time was very much disturbed 
by the teachings of Alexander Campbell. That great 
divine had recently made a tour through Illinois and all 
the pulpits of tlie various sects were ringing with reviews 
of Campbellism. ill -representations were flying thick 
and fast through the religious atmosphere. The disciples 
were few and weak in the community, and, having no 
preacher to champion their cause, the other preachers had 
a comparatively easy time killing Campbellism. Bro. 
Sweeney was living with Judge Short, a prominent mem- 
ber of the M. E. body, and a man of rare mental and 
moral qualities. He was particularly noted for his firm- 
ness of disposition, not only in his official capacity, but in 
all his private affairs. 

Nothing had passed between them to indicate Bro. 
Sweeney's faith, and no one in the community dreamed 
that the rising young lawyer was tinctured with the dan- 
gerous heresy. 

One Saturday evening, Judge Short informed him that 
the M. E. preacher was going to review Campbellism the 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 15 

next day at a point not far away, and invited him to go 
with him to hear the discourse. The invitation was 
accepted, and they went. The preacher was an unedu- 
cated, unscrupulous, noisy fellow. In the course of his 
harangue, he informed the audience that Mr. Campbell 
had said that he ''could take the vilest sinner into the 
water and bring him out a saint." At the conclusion of 
the sermon, the opportunity, usual at that time, was 
given for any who had questions to ask, to propound them. 
Bro, Sweeney rose and quietly asked the preacher, where 
in his writings had Mr. Campbell ever made such a state- 
ment. The minister glowered at him a moment and 
asked, '' Have you come here to break up my meeting?" 
**No, Bro. Powell," instantly replied Judge Short, ''it is 
a fair question and one I should also like to know." The 
preacher promised to produce it at another time, and that 
was the end of the controversy. Immediately after the 
benediction, Bro. S. was surrounded by the few discour- 
aged, but loyal disciples of the community, who .^aid to 
him, "Bro. Sweeney, you are a member of the church of 
Christ?" "Certainly, brethren." "Well, you must 
answer this speech." " I am not a preacher, brethren." 
" No matter : the cause of the Lord and his truth demands 
that we be properly set before this community." It was a 
trying hour for the young man. He was in a most flatter- 
ing situation from a worldly stand})oint, with a prospect 
of great popularity and a lucrative business before him. 
The entire trend of religious thought and teaching was 
with the popular denominations; while on the otluM- hand, 
there were a few ])()()r, uninfluential disciples with a New 
Testament in their lumd and the trunipc^t call of (hity in 
their mouth. He is brought to face the (]uesti()n, '' Christ 
or Diana?" The silver tongue of seli-interest pleaded 



16 Sweeney's sermons. 

with a loud uproar, ''Diana and the Ephesians,'' the still 
small voice of sanctified chivalry whispered, "Christ," 
and Christ it was. 

The school-house was procured and an immense audi- 
ence assembled to hear the popular young orator take up 
the accursed cause — a glorious gospel sermon upon the 
kingdom of heaven to which a number yielded. Peace 
and joy reigned that night in the hearts of God's children 
— rage and indignation in the popular heart, but the des- 
tiny of the young man was forever decided. God had 
set the plow before him, his hand had been put to it, and 
from that day no backward look has been thrown by him. 

A meeting followed soon after the discourse in the 
school-house, held in an unfinished building in the neigh- 
borhood, in the course of which one hundred persons 
were baptized, including several, if not all, the children 
of Judge Short. On one day during the meeting, eight 
men were led into the water together, seven brothers and 
one cousin. During the first year of his ministry thus 
begun, five hundred persons became obedient to the faith 
under his preaching. The violent opposition he every- 
where met soon provoked him to discussion. Riding 
along one day, he saw a large audience assembling upon 
the banks of Apple Creek, where he had baptized the con- 
verts of his first meeting and, turning aside, he found that it 
was a baptism they had come to p?rform. The preacher 
was a Mr. Johnson of the Free-will Baptists, who, while 
teaching immersion, were great sticklers for "mourners' 
bench religion." The preacher seemed very fearful that 
some one would misunderstand their design in the bap- 
tism, and in his speech previous to the baptism, he laid 
particular stress upon the fact that they had not brought 
the candidates to that place to receive remission of sins. 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 17 

They had already received it at the mourners* bench. 
Neither had these candidates come there to be born again. 
He thanked God that all ^ * Baptist converts were born 
again on dry laud." Bro. Sweeney was listening carefully 
and at the conclusion requested permission to ask one 
question. It being granted, he said, *'I should like to 
ask if Baptist converts are all * born of water ' on ^ dry 
land.'" The only reply was, " Sir, you are a Campbellite 
and desire to disturb our meeting." All the events fol- 
lowing occurred within five years of evangelizing. No 
diary being kept, exact dates and precise order cannot be 
gained. He was called upon by the little church in 
Franklin, Morgan Co., to represent it in a discussion with 
the M. E. church, the latter having chosen the Rev. Mr. 
Pallet as its champion. 

THE '' preparation" STORY. 

This discussion was confined to a single proposition 
— **That we are justified by faith only is a most whole- 
some doctrine and very full of comfort, *' Kev. P., of 
course, aflSrming. 

Mr. P. read his opening speech from manuscript, which 
was an efibrt to prove justification by faith without the 
deeds of the law. Bro. S. in his reply, admitted that Mr, 
P. had done about all he had in his speech undertaken to 
do, but that he had not come up to his proposition. He 
then in a few words showed the difl^erence between justifi- 
cation by faith, on the one hand, and justification by faith 
only on the other. Made his attack upon the ** only" in 
the proposition. Asked his opponent if he meant by 
** only "to exclude from justification **the deeds of the 
law "or ** works of righteousness" in which the Jews 
trusted, and which Paul excluded from justification? or 



18 Sweeney's sermons. 

did he mean to exclude the obedience of faith — such as 
the confession, baptism, etc. 

This, of course, confused his opponent, as he was not 
prepared to meet the real issue. He began to flounder. 
Bro. S. held him to the issue of denying all obedience to 
the gospel. 

About this time, Mr. P. discovered that he had lost his 
*^ preparation." A search of tables was made for it, but 
in vain. The debate went on for two or three days, Mr. 
P. in every speech apologizing for his manifest failure by 
referring to his lost *' preparation," insinuating more and 
more plainly as the time went on, that it was '^some- 
where above ground," that somebody ''knew where it 
was" etc. etc. until it became apparent he was endeav- 
oring to make the impression that somebody had stolen it. 
Finally Bro. S. grew tired of such insinuations, and sug- 
gested that Mr. P. should say outright it was stolen, 
or leave off his insinuations to that effect. Whereupon 
Mr. P. came out boldly and accused him of taking the 
** preparation" from his table while he (Mr. P.) was read- 
ing his opening speech, and proved it by one of his breth- 
ren. The witness was cross-examined pretty severely. It 
was brought out of him, that two days before, while Mr. 
P. was making his opening speech, witness saw S. 
take the *' preparation," (had seen it before and described 
it,) from the table in front of the pulpit and hand it to one 
elder Geo. Owen, who was sitting by Mr. S., and said 
that Owen put ix into his own pocket. He couldn't be 
mistaken as he knew the *' preparation " and knew Owen 
and had known him for years. Quite a sensation was 
created, of course. At the noon adjournment following 
this scene, Bro. S. announced that there would be some 
further developments of the matter in the afternoon, and 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 19 

that if the people would come together a half-hour before 
the time for beginning the debate, they might see some- 
body in tribulation. The matter was much discussed and 
with much feeling during the recess, and fully half an hour 
before time for beginning the discussion, the house was 
literally packed full. Bro. S. called the matter up. Mr. 
P.'s witness stood his ground. Bro. S. called attention to 
the fact that said elder Geo. Owen was not in the house 
at all while Mr. P. was making his opening speech; that 
he was in Jacksonville, and came to Franklin in the after- 
noon of that day. All of which he proved by Mr. Owen, 
by the young man who had brought Mr. Owen to Frank- 
lin, and by others — all of which the people knew when 
they came to reflection. Then there was intense excit^e- 
ment in the audience. Bro. S. gave out that there would be 
still further development of the case that night. Bat that 
night Mr. P. came forward to settle the matter, and re- 
ported that he had found his ' ^ preparation " at home in 
his trunk, and that it had never been in the church, — about 
that he had made a mistake. Apologized and hoped the 
matter was at an end, to the satisfaction of all parties. 
Bro. S. said he was satisfied except on one point : He was 
a little curious to know what Mr. P.'s witness had to say 
for himself. Said witness would say nothing only he was 
** disgusted with Campbellite impudence." Bro. 8. said 
he would conclude the case by advising the witness to 
make sure, the next time he proved a falsehood for a 
brother, that it was one who would not give him away in 
a close place, to save himself. Whereupon witness 
proposed there and then to flog Sweeney, and a hirixe 
burly fellow, theretofore unknown in the case, rose and 
proposed himself to take Sweeney's flogging, asserting his 
entire readiness and willingness to do it. Bro. S. jn-oposed 



20 sweenky's sermons. 

that there wa.s no time then for flogging anybody, as the 
time had arrived for the discussion to begin. This motion 
prevailed, and the discussion was resumed. 

The denominations seemed determined that the ''heresy 
of Campbellism " should not get a foothold in the ''Prairie 
►State." Young Sweeney had fully committed himself to 
the cause " everywhere spoken against," and had selected 
for his field of operations, a large scope of country in 
which there were only a few disciples and only three or 
four who ever tried to defend the cause in public, and 
they were comparatively without education, except that 
they knew the New Testament, but determined to make 
the best possible fight for it ; so the work went on. 

In the year 1859, he held a discussion at Whitehall with 
Rev. J. B. Logan of the Cumberland Presbyterian church. 
That gentleman was a very able representative of his de- 
nomination, being at that time editor of their leading 
church 23aper, published at St. Louis. He was in the very 
prime of life, being about 45 years of age, while Bro. 
Sweeney was then only about 25 years old. 

He was, moreover, a candid and able disputant, and 
that debate, which was published, still stands in the front 
rank of the published debates upon the baptismal question. 

The Presbyterian church in Whitehall was strong and 
influential, while our people could be counted upon the 
fingers of one hand, without organization or house of wor- 
ship. As evidence of their weakness, there was no proper 
place for Bro. Sweeney to stop, and he was compelled to 
board at the village hotel during the debate. 

The spirit of the book is high toned and fair, just 
what might be expected as the result of a contest be- 
tween two honorable and fair-minded men, though 
it was frequently enlivened by sallies of wit. At one 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 21 

time Dr. Logan was laboring to show that baptizo meant 
to dip or put under, but did not include the idea 
of bringing out, and therefore to baptize according to that 
word meant to put under and leave there. *^Now," he 
says, *' there is just one clear case of such baptism in the 
Bible, and that is where the devil entered into the swine 
and they all ran down into the sea and were drowned." 
Bro. Sweeney answered by calling attention to the fact 
that his opponent could see without difficulty how in case 
of the devil and the swine, *'down into the sea" meant 
what it said, but in the case of Philip and the Ethiopian, 
**down into the water" meant almost anything else than 
what it said. '* But," said he, ''I am glad the gentleman 
admits even that the devil immersed the swine. That, 
however, was his last immersion. He lost his bacon and 
determined there and then to change the mode. He has 
ever since contended for a less dangerous mode." As a 
result of the discussion, our people began to grow in num- 
bers and influence until we had a large and flourishing 
church, while the opposite result marked the history of the 
Presbyterians. It was that discussion that attracted the 
general attention of our people to Bro. Sweeney as an able 
polemic, and since then he has held seventy-five or eighty 
debates, generally against his will. He was never fond 
of it and it was only his transcendent ability that caused 
our churches to force him to represent them so often. 
During the next few years, he made his home in the 
bosom of the church and was continually holding meet- 
ings, during which time he encountered mniiy strange 
characters and passed tlirougli novel experiences. When 
we consider the rude and uncultivated condition oi the 
public mind at that early period, it would be pai^sing 
strange if su(;h a man, piw^sing such an unj)()pular cause, 



22 Sweeney's sermons. 

did uot. He was holding a meeting near Bunker Hill, and 
during the meeting a young lady came forward one night 
and confessed the Savior. She was the daughter of an old 
German known all through the community for his clever- 
ness and stubbornness. The old man was highly outraged 
and swore in his wrath that "dose Gamellites shall not 
pabdize mine gal." The next day when they assembled 
at the water's edge, the old gentleman and some of his 
friends assembled and called to the girl to come out and 
see them. A long and excited conversation was held in 
German, and at its close the girl returned and informed 
brother Sweeney that her father not only threatened her 
own life, but also the life of anyone who dared baptize 
her, saying " They would never come out alive/' Bro. 
Sweeney told her to decide the case for herself. She 
looked at him and said, **Can you risk it?" ''I can," 
was his reply. " Then so can I," she said, and they both 
started down into the water, the young lady singing be- 
tween sobs, '' Jesus, I my cross have taken." Her father 
stood for a moment and then turned blubbering and cry- 
ing, and ran with the fleetness of an antelope till he was 
clear out of sight. Some years after Bro. Sweeney re- 
ceived a letter from the young lady, informincr him that 
her father had greatly softened, was kind and devoted to 
her, and often spoke of him, and she believed that if he 
could make them another visit, he would himself obey 
the gospel. 

THE SPRINGFIELD PREACHERS' CONVENTION. 

It was during this period of five years that Bro. S. was 
evangelizing that there was an event occurred in the state, 
which attracted considerable attention in and even from 
without the state, in which he was called to figure some- 
what conspicuously. There was a preacher in the state, 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 23 

living in Springfield and belonging to the congregation 
there, who had preached over the state a good deal and 
was pretty generally known to the brethren, whose name 
was Brown — familiarly known as *^ Billy Brown." He 
was a man of considerable but not very compact learning, 
considerable oratory of the old fashioned top-loftical sort, 
of great personal magnetism, and hence of great power 
with the masses. But for some reason — some said because 
he was a bad man, others said because he was a very pop- 
ular man^ — he was unpopular with a good many of the 
preachers. Charges had been preferred against him, and 
he had been tried and retained in the church at Spring- 
field. A good many of the preachers thought he should 
be silenced, and even excluded from the church. A 
scheme was concocted by preachers in and close around 
Springfield to call a council of preachers to meet in that 
city to consider and act upon the matter. Circulars were 
printed signed by John F. Rowe, now editor of the C/^m- 
tian Leader, and others and sent to the preachers over the 
state, inviting them to Springfield on a named day to 
consider matters of vital importance to the cause. The 
time came, and in considerable numbers the preachers 
came. An organization was efiected. The object of the 
meeting was never, and never has yet been, fully 
explained. It was apparent, however, that there were a 
good many preachers there after Billy Brown's scalp. 
They didn't seem to know exactly how to go about getting 
it, hut evidently that was what they had come for. This 
writer has several times heard Bro. Sweeney describe the 
meeting as composed of three classes of prenchers. 
(1) Those who were ready to go into a reiriilMr J^piscopnl 
organization, to scalp Billy Brown and anybody else 
that might need scalping in the future as he did then. 



24 Sweeney's sermons. 

(2) Those who didn't believe in any such high church 
business, but still were rather anxious in some way to 
scalp Billy Brown. (3) Those who were opposed to all 
that kind of scalping business, and all such unnecessary 
organization without any reference to Billy Brown's case. 
A committee was appointed to try Brown. He came before 
the convention and asserted his readiness to give account 
of himself to his own congregation, as he had done, but 
denied the right of that body to adjudicate in the case. 
Then followed a vast amount of discussion as to proper 
tribunals, etc. etc. 

The committee appointed to try Brown proceeded to 
hear the evidence against him, and reported against him 
to the convention, and the convention was asked to 
approve the committee's finding, without hearing the evi- 
dence, and to depose Brown from the ministry whether or 
no. This was too much for brother Sweeney, and many 
other brethren who were there. They protested, but in 
vain ; the majority had come there to scalp Brown, and 
they did it. Bro. S. told them in a speech on a motion to 
adopt the report of the committee, that, allowing the 
authority of the preachers present to do what they pro- 
posed, he would never vote for the adoption of the report 
of a committee to ruin a brother without hearing tli« evi- 
dence for himself. That such a proceeding was an out- 
rage upon justice and decency, saying nothing about the 
spirit of Jesus. But he denounced the proceeding also as 
flagrantly opposed to the congregational independency, 
for which the disciples had always contended — the Congre- 
gationalism of the New Testament — and told them with 
an emphasis that none of them who are living have for- 
gotten that they were making a record of which in their 
old age they would be ashamed, and if they were not their 



LIFE OF JOHN 8. SWEENEY. 25 

children would be after they were dead, and that as to the 
effect on ** Billy Brown," their proceedings would only 
give him more largely the sympathy of his friends, right or 
wrong, in the matters of which they charged him. Sure 
enough, after the convention adjourned, nobody defended 
its action. 

In the fall of 1859, he held a discussion at Glasgow 
with a Universalist preacher, Mr. Whitesides, and though 
that gentleman held out firmly during the discussion, he 
took ill shortly after and at once sent a messenger for Bro. 
Sweeney to come to him. It so happened that Bro. S. 
had gone to the state of Wisconsin and could not be pres- 
ent with him; but Mr. Whitesides ordered all his Uni- 
versalist books and papers to be destroyed and recanted 
all his preaching as a Universalist and died. 

During the five years of his ministry as an evangelist, 
he baptized about 2,000 persons. Two of the five years 
referred to he was associated with Elijah Craig, as editor 
of the Bible Advocate, published at Jacksonville, a 
monthly paper advocating the principles of the restoration, 
and which finally evolved into the Christian- Evangelist, 
now published at St. Louis, Mo. He never was fond of 
editorial work, but consented that he might help the cause 
in one of its most trying hours. 

Our people felt that we needed a college and decided 
to establish one at Jacksonville and named it Beroan 
College. Bro. Walter Scott Russell, a graduate of Beth- 
any, and who was connected by marriage with the Camp- 
bell family, was called to be its president and also to 
preach for the church in Jacksonville. He was a man of 
ability and deep piety, to wliich were added much U arn- 
ing and a high decree of culture. He was a sinccMvly 
good man, but a mystic of the Samuel Taylor Coleridge 



26 Sweeney's sermons. 

school. Coleridge says of himself, that he became so 
absorbed in abstract speculations, that history facts and 
even poetry became insipid. So absorbed did Kussell 
become in Coleridge, that the Bible as a revelation of 
God became insipid to him, and he taught that the soul 
must have direct spiritual illumination from God. All 
his teaching both in the college and pulpit, was subor- 
dinate to this one idea, and it was not long until a large 
part ot the church and college were imbued with the same 
teaching, and many of our leading preachers were open 
advocates of the new doctrine, while others were hesitating. 
It was a perilous hour for the cause of the restoration. 
The great body of our brotherhood were loyal to the script- 
ures, but they lacked leadership. Bro. Craig was always 
taithful, but he was not a man fitted to form and lead 
public opinion. Among the preachers openly avowing 
their faith in the new inner light theory, were such men as 
T. J. Melish, I. N. Carman, Frank Apperson, a brilliant 
young Englishman, and W. W. Happy, a veteran 
preacher and at that time president of the State Mission- 
ary Society, soon to convene at Eureka. 
eureka state meeting. 
The state convention was entirely in the hands of the 
sympathizers with Russell. Happy, in many respects the 
most influential man in the state, was the president, and had 
been from the beginning. Samuel Callaway was the treas- 
urer anil P. Lucas, professor in the college under Russell's 
presidency, was secretary, and they were all in full sympa- 
thy with the new movement, which they seemed to believe 
was to reform the reformation on the basis of the inner- 
light theory advocated by Russell. The Christian Sentinel, 
the only organ the disciples had in the state, under the 
control of I. N. Carman, was publishing with endorsement 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 27 

the articles and addresses of Russell. Many of the leading 
preachers of the state, especially the college mates of Rus- 
sell, were either approving the movement or halting in 
their minds, awaiting the further developments. Many 
seemed not to understand the matter. The brotherhood 
generally (aside from preachers) were true to the old faith 
for which they had labored and suffered persecution, but 
felt unable to resist the influence against them, and were 
greatly agitated, perhaps alarmed would not be too strong 
a word to express their state of feeling. The state meet- 
ing came on at Eureka. Two addresses had been made 
evidently leaning to the new movement. Bro. Sweeney, 
busy in the fight with the opposition without, as we have 
seen, did not reach Eureka until the second day of the 
convention. His fame as a successful preacher and de- 
bater had gone all over the state. How he stood as to the 
new movement was not fully known. Both sides were 
claiming him. He had only a few weeks before, been at 
Jacksonville and preached in Russell's pulpit, and it was 
claimed that he was RusselFs friend and sympathizer. 
But the brethren through the state refused to believe it. 
They would not until they had it from his mouth or pen. 
They had not heard him on the matter and he had written 
nothing. President Russell had taken the ground that 
the gospel was the ** letter" in the Pauline sense of the 
word, and that it was powerless without the personal and 
immediate work of the Spirit ; that whatever was in the 
scriptures predicated of the Spirit, that he did in his own 
person, unless it was explained that he did it by instru- 
mentality; that he convicted sinners of sin, of righteous- 
ness and of judgment in his own proper person and by in- 
ternal working; that the preaching of the gospel wiis a 
mere circumstance, and by no means a necessary one at 



28 Sweeney's sermons. 

that ; that men could do more effective missionary work by 
praying the Lord to send the Spirit to enlighten the 
heathen than they could by preaching the word to them, the 
word being powerless without the additional inner light of 
the Spirit. He had even contrasted the whole personal min- 
istry of our Lord with the day of Pentecost, arguing that 
the reason our Lord converted so few during his personal 
ministry was that he only preached the word, the *' letter," 
which while it might kill could not give life ; while the 
conversion of the thousands on Pentecost could only be 
accounted for by the personal presence and inner light of 
the Holy Spirit ; that the testimony of Peter upon the 
occasion was a mere tip or pointer to what was being done 
by the Spirit in his own person in the hearts of the sin- 
ners present. Of course the denominations were de- 
lighted. The restoration was not only being reformed but 
was being made altogether orthodox. Everybody was 
happy but the really true and loyal disciples. They were 
discouraged and chagrined. All their educated men 
seemed to be drifting from them. On the second day of 
the convention, J. S. Sweeney arrived. He had never 
before visited this part of the state and was unknown by 
face to many of the disciples, though not by name. The 
committee reported that he would preach that evening. 
Now what would he have to say ? Was he with Kussell, 
notwithstanding the many battles he had fought in the 
good work of the restoration ? Would he ignore the issue ? 
Could he do that? Would he draw the old Jerusalem 
blade and let the light shine on it again ? What would he 
do ? He dined with Happy, Russell, and others. Did that 
mean anything? That was a mere circumstance. 

The hour came for preaching. The house was literally 
** packed and jammed " to use a Western phrase. The text 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 29 

was, '^ For he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever 
he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he shall tell you 
the things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall re- 
ceive of mine and shall tell it unto you." 

The first remark was that the Holy Spirit didn't come 
into the world to preach himself, and that he doesn't do 
so now. Men who are guided now by the Spirit do not 
preach the Holy Spirit much, but Christ ; that when men 
find themselves most of the time preaching the Holy 
Spirit or some theory about the Holy Spirit, they may 
pretty safely take the fact itself as sufficient proof that 
they are not directed by the Spirit — that they are off. 

Secondly, the Spirit didn't come to take possession of 
and guide all men into the truth ; that the promise of such 
guidance was to his chosen ones, and that they and only 
they were guided ; showed what the admission of universal 
innerlightism even of all Christians would lead to. He 
then took up the Pentecost matter and showed that the 
wonderful effect, in the way of conversions, produced on 
that occasion was to be attributed to what was preached ; 
that the work of Christ during his personal ministry was 
not a failure, as some assumed, but was preparatory to the 
subsequent work of the Spirit through the apostles. 
**What success" he asked, ^* suppose you, would have 
attended the preaching of the apostles even after the com- 
ing of the Spirit, but for the previous and preparatory 
work of Jesus? What did the apostles preach on tlie day 
of Pentecost, speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, 
that reached the hearts of the people and yielded such 
grand results? Was it not rvlmt Jcm.^ had before donef 
Jesus by what he did, tanght, and suffered, laid the foun- 
dation for the success of tlu^ gosj)ol Mftorwnrd ]>roa(']uMl by 
the apostles by the insi)iration of the Si)irit. The a})ostle8 



80 PWEENEY's 8EKMONS. 

on the day of Pentecost and thereafter preached by the 
Holy Spirit facts which Jesus did not declare in his per- 
sonal ministry, facts which had not in fact transpired, and 
it was the effect of these facts now for the first time de- 
clared that was seen in so many conversions on Pentecost." 
In conclusion he restated with tremendous force and effect 
the importance of Pentecost as the beginning of the proc- 
lamation of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation. 
It has been said by some who heard him on that occasion 
and have heard him often since, that it was the master 
effort of his life. The effect was magnetic, and beyond 
description. At the conclusion of the discourse an old fash- 
ioned song was sung. The brethren broke over all bounds 
of custom, and by scores rushed forward to grasp the hand 
of the young preacher, with tears in their eyes and many 
amens upon their lips. The ''reformers of the restora- 
tion " stood erect and looked straight down their noses, 
evidently feeling that the new movement was not mov- 
ing on so swimmingly as they had seemed to suppose. 

This was the beginning of the end. The new move- 
ment w as put upon a course of ultimate and rapid extinc^ 
tion. Within a year the state convention was under a 
new administration. The whole Russell regime went — 
Happy and all. 

Russell died. The church in Jacksonville, was some- 
time after reunited. Happy, Carman, and Callaway went 
to the Baptists, Lucas went to the law. The college 
went to ruin — Melish to the Baptists, then to the 
Episcopals, and is still going. Only Happy ever returned. 

LAST MEETING W^ITH HAPPY. 

In the summer of 1871 or 1872, after brother Sweeney 
had moved from Chicago to Paris, he made a visit to Win- 



LIFE OF JOH>' S. SWEENEY. 31 

Chester, the home of his wile's people, and having to pass 
throu'-^h Jacksonville, his abiding love lor the old soldier, 
induced him to call at his home, in that city, to see him. 
The old man was not at home, and he didnt see him. On 
brother Sweeney's return, however, he met him on the road, 
a few miles out of Jacksonville on his way, in a buggy, to 
preach the next day in a country Baptist chui'ch, which 
fact, brother Sweeney had learned from some source. They 
halted in the road and after recognitions, salutations and a 
few questions and answers, the following dialogue substan- 
tially took place between them. 

S. *' Well, Bro. Happy, for whom and what are you 
preaching nowadays ?" 

H. *' For whom and what are you preaching?" 
S. ^' For the Lord, and the old Jerusalem gospel."" 
H. ** That's my ticket exactly, so, you see, you and I 
ar© in harmony again.'' 

5. * ' Are we in full harmony as once we were before 
the war?'' 

H. **Well, I am in somewhat different harness now, 
but am working for the same Master, and doing about the 
same kind of work.'' 

6. ^'Does your harness fit you as well, and are you 
working as easy in it, and are you Happy, as of old?'' 

H. " Well, John, to be frank, I must admit that the 
harness rubs me in places, and I don't feel perfectly easy 
in it. But I guess Til have to stand it for my few re- 
maining days." 

S. ** Wouldn't you like to be with us again — to be 
easy in the harness?'' 

H. '^ I don't know where to find you. 

S. ** Do you know where you loft us?" 

H. ** I know where we parted^' 



32 Sweeney's sermons. 

S. ** Well, there you can meet us again. But I am in 
a hurry and I presume you are too. I don't know that I 
could do you much good anyway by talking to you, but I 
think I know one that could set you all right again if you 
would consult him. You could see him almost anywhere 
and at almost any time." 

H. ^^AVhoishe?'' 

S. *'His name is Knockunder — Mr. I. W. Knockun- 
der. Do you know him ? " 

H. *' Well, I have heard of him, but, I must confess, 
I have no intimate acquaintance with the gentleman." 

S. ** Possibly, if you will see him and cultivate his 
acquaintance, he might put you in the way to become 
altogether Sappy again." 

H. '* Ha I Good-bye, John, God bless you." 

S. '' Good-bye, Bro. Happy." 

In the early fall following the foregoing interview, Bro. 
Happy returned to the church. He attended the state 
convention at Bloomington and made a public statement 
on which the brethren present gladly gave him the hand 
of fellowship. From that convention Bro. O. A. Bur- 
gess went to Paris, Ky. to hold a meeting with Bro. 
Sweeney, and Bro. Happy said to him, '* Tell John I 
found his friend, '' Knockunder," and he has been of great 
service to me." 

In the fall of 1861, Bro. Sweeney removed to Lincoln, 
Illinois and took charge of the church at that place, staying 
with them two years, at the end of which time he was chosen 
state evangelist of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society. 
During the time he filled this position, the State Board 
sent him to Chicago to assist our brethren at that point in a 
meeting. It was a small band meeting on the West Side, 
and then known as the Monroe Street Christian church. 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 33 

It was ministered to regularly by Bro. W. F. Black, at 
that time but a *' boy preacher," but who is, after a lapse 
of nearly thirty years, the popular preacher of the large 
and flourishing church on the South Side. The meeting 
was quite a successful one and as Bro. Black was prepar- 
ing to leave them, the congregation at once extended a 
hearty and unanimous call to Bro. Sweeney, which he 
accepted. Under his ministry the church rapidly pros- 
pered and soon began to attract public notice as a factor 
in the moral history of the city. 

In the year 1866, he was called to and accepted the pas- 
torate of Smith and Mound streets, now Richmond street, 
church in Cincinnati, Ohio, succeeding Bro. T. D. Gar- 
vin. He only remained one year, but long enough to 
pass through one of the saddest of his life experiences, 
and one from which it took him years to recover, viz : the 
death of his only son, Walter Scott, which occurred from 
cholera, which terrible plague was at that time decimating 
the city. This so set his heart against the city that he de- 
sired to leave it, and his old congregation eagerly called 
him back to Chicago to what had then become the Six- 
teenth and Wabash Avenue congregation. Shortly after 
his return, he baptized two young ladies. Misses Bertha 
and Ida Honore, daughters of Bro. H. H. Honore. They 
have since become famous for their many excellent quali- 
ties of heart and brain ; the former, now Mrs. Potter 
Palmer, Lady President of the World's Fair Committee, 
the latter, Mrs. F. D. Grant, wife of our present INIinister 
to Vienna, Austria. Pie also immersed Mr. Palmer and 
married him to Miss Ilonore. At that time the little con- 
gregation on Wabash Avenue contained some of the most 
influential of Chicago's citizens and bade fair to become 
one of the most prominent and powerful in the city. Its 
3 



34 bweeney's sermons. 

after history is a sad comment upon the evils of internal 
dissensions among the people of God. 

It was during his last pastorate at Chicago that he had 
some of the most celebrated debates for which he has been 
noted. Bro. Sweeney often relates as one of the most in- 
teresting, and at the time, exciting episodes of all his ex- 
perience in debates, one that occurred at Atlanta, 111. in 
1868, during a discussion between O. A. Burgess and one 
Dr. Burrows, a Spiritist-infidel. Bro. Sweeney was pres- 
ent at Bro. Burgess' invitation and put in charge of 
everything excepting the debating. 

Dr. Burrows represented a society of Spiritists at At- 
lanta that embraced quite a number of men and women, 
and several of some prominence, socially and otherwise. 
They had made themselves conspicuous for disregarding 
and scofiing at what they called the unreasonable require- 
ments and exactions of Christian customs, especially Sun- 
day observances and social intercourse of the sexes. They 
all believed in what they called Women's Rights. They 
would go fishing on Sundays when Christian folks were at 
church, and in the little stream would go bathing, both 
sexes together, and had managed to get up a good deal of 
talk about themselves. In fact some scandals had been 
whispered about them. Burgess had heard how they be- 
haved themselves generally to show their defiance for 
Christian sentiments, but there was one scandal of a more 
serious nature, implicating a man or two, and a woman or 
two, and a doctor or two, of which he had not heard. 
During the debate the question about the incarnation of 
our Lord came up, and Dr. Burrows made an attack upon 
the virtue of the mother of Jesus, insinuating about the 
darkest surmises of an evil mind, which of course Burgess 
resented with severity and indignation, among other 



LIFE OF JOHN 8. SWEENEY. 35 

things saying that such evil surmises would very naturally 
arise in the minds of such persons as so far disregarded 
propriety and decency as by indiscriminate bathing and 
other things to make themselves offensive to the whole 
community. This was a fire brand. It meant more in 
the community than Burgess knew, and was generally 
taken as an allusion to the scandal of a most serious na- 
ture. This occurred just before noon adjournment. Bro. 
Sweeney said he noticed the effect of the allusion when it 
was made, and that as soon as the audience was dismissed 
it was all on fire, and soon the town was on fire. The 
prominent gentlemen went off* nodding significantly and 
cursing audibly. 

As Bros. Burgess and Sweeney were going to their 
room, one of the insulted gentlemen took Bro. Sweeney 
aside and read the riot act to him. He told him that 
Burgess had intentionally referred to a low mean scandal 
that had been whispered around the town to the injury of 
certain ladies and gentlemen ; and that they meant to 
hold him personally responsible for it ; that nothing short 
of retraction and apology could prevent effusion of blood ; 
advised Bro. Sweeney to induce Burgess to so retract and 
apologize that afternoon in his first speech. Bro. Sweeney 
told the irate gentleman that he didn't see that Burgess 
owed any one an apology and he should not even ask him 
to make one ; that while Christians didn't believe in set- 
tling questions by fighting, they were not all necessarily 
cowards ; that they had the privilege of suffering and 
even dying bravely ; that he might think it worth while 
to mention the matter to Burij^ess and he might not. 
There the interview ended. Bros. Burgess and Sweeney 
had scarcely reached their room, when callers began to 
arrive with reports that were on the town. There was 



36 

blood ou the moon. Burgess declined to talk about the 
little side matter and referred the callers to Bro. Sweeney 
who answered all alike, '' Let's not get excited; but keep 
cool, it will all end right/' 

AVhen the people came together that evening the most 
intense excitement prevailed among all sexes and ages, 
and something desperate seemed to be expected generally. 
Some of the men who demanded an apology and made 
threats were considered dangerous; and it had gone forth 
that no apologies or concessions would be made. The 
house was packed full and the yard was full and excite- 
ment was on tiptoe before the time for the meeting ; and 
a fearful silence reigned in and out of the house. As soon 
as Bros. Burgess and SAveeney came in and were seated 
they began receiving notes from persons in the audience: 
**What shall wx do?" ''What are you going to do?" 
** What is the programme ? " ' ' We are with you," etc. etc. 
Dr. Burrows had the first speech that afternoon, and seemed 
perfectly cool and self-possessed until his notes brought 
him to the offensive allusion in Burgess' forenoon speech. 
Then he said he was somewhat trammeled by the rules of 
debate, and would himself pass the gentleman's unworthy 
allusion to a local scandal. He couldn't, however, answer 
for the others implicated. He rather thought they were 
disposed, as they ought to be, to hold the gentleman person- 
ally responsible. And as for himself, he wished then and 
there to serve notice on the gentleman that if the allusion 
was repeated he '' should bring upon him a hasty retribu- 
tion a thousand times hotter than all the hell in his Bible." 
The audience w^as breathless and the speaker paused that 
his remark might have the emphasis of silence. Bro. 
Sweeney looking the speaker in the face said, so as to be 
heard all over the house, '' pooh." The speaker proceeded 



LIFE OF JOHN 8. SWEENEY. 37 

as if he didn't hear it. In a few minutes his time expired. 
And as Bro. Burgess was about to arise to reply Bro. 
Sweeney put a little piece of paper in his hand with these 
words on it: ** Keep perfectly cool, but score him, we are 
all here— J. S. S.'' 

Burgess proceeded to review the speech pretty much in 
the order in which it was delivered ; but not half his 
hearers knew what he was saying, such being their anxiety 
for him to reach the point that had given offense. What 
will he do ? Will he retract ? Will he apologize ? Will 
he pass the matter entirely without notice ? or what will 
he do I And then what will the other party do? and 
then what will the whole congregation do ? When Bur- 
gess came to that point in his speech, he repeated the 
threatening language of his opponent and said ^ * Bah ! " 
And after a pause, said, ^'Ladies and gentlemen, I take 
this my earliest opportunity to repeat with all possible em- 
phasis every word I said in my former speech ; now come 
on with your hot stuff." Then after a short pause there 
was a general relaxation in the feelings of the audience 
and a general laugh. Thus ended one of the most excit- 
ing of all the scenes I ever witnessed at a religious or any 
other kind of a debate. 

In the spring of 1869, Bro. Sweeney was called to Salem, 
Indiana to discuss witli Prof Pike, of Boston, For some 
months that gentleman had been lecturing in Southern 
Indiana, and like Goliath of old, he was marchiug and par- 
adiug in front of the hosts of Israel and defying them 
to battle. 

No one could be found in any denomination to enter 
the lists and matters were getting quite serious for the 
cause of Christianity. Finally it Avas decided to have 
Bro. Sweeney meet him. The writer of this sketch 



38 SWEENEY^S SERMONS. 

attended the debate, joining Bro. Sweeney en route to the 
scene of action at Greencastle, Indiana. The infidels had 
industriously circulated the report that "Sweeney dare 
not come and there will be no debate.'' 

As our party came into the borders of Southern In- 
diana, and being on the last train previous to the opening 
of the discussion, great crowds assembled at each station 
curious to know and eager to ask, " Is Sweeney on board ?" 

As the reply *'yes" was returned a shout of gladness 
went up from the hearts of God's people which grew in 
volume and power as we reached the scene of action. At 
Salem, the excitement was at fever heat, and more than 
two thousand persons w^ere at the station. 

Our arrival was greeted by cheers from Christian peo- 
ple and a surprised but scornful look by the infidels. The 
debate began the next morning Bro. Sweeney opening on 
the proposition, "The Christianity of the Bible is a Di- 
vine Institution " in a masterful effort of one hour, in 
which he carefully discriminated betw^een the Mosaism and 
Christianity of the Bible. He clustered all his arguments 
around Christ as the center of Christianity. He then 
proceeded logically to show that Christians lived and died 
with Christ. If Christ was divine, Christianity was divine. 
If Christ rose from the dead, he was divine. This of 
course, forced the debate to turn upon the resurrection of 
Christ — the last place in the world Mr. Pike was prepared 
to meet Christianity. Seeing his inability to meet the ar- 
gument, he began his reply by stating that the reply to 
Mr. Sweeney's speech was written out but he had left it 
in his trunk at the hotel. Whereupon he commenced read- 
ing an old lecture, rehashing a number of bishop Colenso's 
objections to the Bible. He never recovered from the 
obvious failure. The plain Hoosiers could not understand 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 39 

how Mr. Pike could be prophet enough to understand be- 
fore hand what Mr. Sweeney would say, and then write a 
reply. Above all, if he were astute enough to do so before 
hand, they felt that he ought to foresee when he would need 
it and not leave it in his trunk at the hotel. This opening 
episode was but of a piece with the entire discussion. He 
was not a debater and while he had some force as a lec- 
turer, it was only when there was no opponent to reply. 

The result was a complete vindication of Christianity in 
general and also of the vantage ground we occupy as a 
people in our views of the relation of Christianity to the 
Old Testament, and many a sectarian was freed from 
the bondage of the old covenant before the discussion 
closed. 

As a further result of this discussion, infidelity had no 
further use for Mr. Pike's lectures, and he sought Ohio as 
a greener pasture. It was not long till the church at 
Salem, Ohio, asked Bro. Sweeney to meet Prof. Pike 
again, which he did with the following result : Mr. Pike 
quit challenging Christians for debate henceforth and con- 
fined himself to lecturing strictly upon scientific matters, 
even going so far as to write a book in opposition to some 
of the collaterals of infidelity. In conversation with the 
writer of this biography a few years later, he admitted 
that he quit infidelity because there was '' No comfort in it, 
if true I V^ 

During the progress of the above discussion a very 
amusing episode occurred. 

There was an infidel there who had control of some 
kind of factory, over the door of which in hirge letters 
was, ''No Sabbath Here," and Bro. Sweeney had seen 
it or heard of it. During the debate he pressed Mr. 
Pike to tell what he proposed to give the people instead of 



40 Sweeney's sermons. 

Christianity, telliDg him if he had anything better and 
would introduce it, Christianity would give way, as dark- 
ness when light comes in, or as the cold when heat is in- 
troduced. Mr. Pike said that infidels could not do any- 
thing on account of Christianity ; that it was in their way, 
and that when they got it out of the way, then they 
would give the world something better. Bro. Sweeney 
said, ''Well, go where there is no Christianity, and try 
your hand; go to the Fiji Islands, for instance, and set 
up ; and if you don't get eaten up before you build up 
large factories, you will not need to write over the door, 
''No Sabbath Here;'' you can begin there where you will 
have no Bible hindrances and work out to Christendom. 
It might improve the society both here and there, if 
infidels were to do any good there!" Whereupon the 
old factory man rose up and started down the aisle towards 
the stage whereon Bro. Sweeney was standing — they were 
in the opera house. The people became very much 
excited, and were nearly all on foot, and some of the 
women began to cry out. Bro. Sweeney said, "Friends, 
please sit down ; the gentleman can't get here with you all 
standing in the way." The man wanted to know if he 
was ready to fight when he insulted gentlemen. " Well, 
no ; Christians don't fight, you know ; but they have been 
noted for dying game; so you can come on, my friend." 

At the steps going upon the stage the old man met a 
gentleman with a star on his breast, and walked ofi* with 
him, and the debate proceeded without blood-letting. 

In the summer of 1870, Bro. Sweeney was called to 
Kentucky to meet Rev. Jacob Ditzler, the champion de- 
bater of the M. E. Church South, who was diligently 
pressing the disciples for a discussion. It was held in 
the town of Carlisle, the county-seat of Nicholas County. 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 41 

The debate held over two weeks, occupying the day 
only, while each party had preaching at night. During 
the first week thei-t; were several confessions at the Chris- 
tian church, and it was announced on Saturday that 
they would be baptized on Sunday. Whereupon it was 
announced that there would also be baptizing at the Meth- 
odist church on Sunday. This raised some anxiety among 
the people as to whom they were going to baptize; there 
having been no professions at their meetings during the 
week. Their meeting was attended on Sunday by some to 
see what was done. Sure enough they had found a boy 
some six or seven years old, whose mother had recently 
died, having, while living, successfully opposed his bap- 
tism in infancy. The boy was left at her death with his 
paternal grandfather, who was a zealous Methodist. He 
and the preachers had arranged to baptize this boy, as an 
infant. The service was read up to the last prayer, and 
while that was being said, the boy broke, the grandfather 
following him down the aisle. A gentleman present who 
sympathized with the boy in the race, stepped into the 
aisle between the boy and the grandfather, and the boy 
made good his escape, and they never got him. Bro. 
Sweeney got the whole matter from responsible parties. 
On Monday the discussion was resumed, Bro. Sweeney 
opening up on the design of baptism. Ditzler followed 
with a tirade about water, water, as usual, accusing the 
disciples of making entirely too much of water. Bro. 
Sweeney in reply admitted that his brethren attached 
considerable importance to baptism as the Lord's appoint- 
ment, having u])()n it the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. '*! love," said 
he, **to see penitent believers baptized, but you never 
catch me chasing little orphans out of the liouse trying 



42 Sweeney's sermons. 

to baptize them by force, because death has deprived 
them of the protection of their mothers." The Methodist 
moderator raised a question of ^' order," but the Board 
sustained Bro. Sweeney and he added, ** I would advise 
you, Bro. Ditzler to provide yourself a water gun, that 
will throw water some distance, and then you can take 
on the wing such as are able to flee . If you had been 
thus provided yesterday, you might have got that boy." 
This little incident was a thorn in Ditzler's flesh in all 
his subsequent debates with Bro. Sweeney who didn't often 
tell it, but would frequently threaten him with it, when 
the Dr. would get to talking about '' water, water;" and 
it would always check him. Some think this is one reason 
why the Dr. doesn't much like to debate with Bro. 
Sweeney. However, I think the Dr. and Bro. Sweeney 
have always been the best of personal friends. 

Returning from this discussioo he was pressed by the 
Paris church to preach one discourse, which he did, and it 
resulted in a call from that church, which he accepted, 
believing Kentucky, at that time, a good field for the ex- 
ercise of his ability. 

He removed to Paris in the spring of 1870, and will en- 
ter his twenty-second year in the coming spring. 

It would be difficult to estimate the extent of his influ- 
ence during this long pastorate. It has been an example 
for many others to imitate, which they have done. Many 
a church in the brotherhood owes its prosperity to the de- 
votion of its pastor, which he has caught from Bro, 
Sweeney. Probably no preacher in Kentucky is now 
looked upon by all the brotherhood of that great state as 
always so reliable, firm, free from sectarianism and loyal 
to the great cause, as Bro. Sweeney. They all feel that 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 43 

the cause is at all times and under all circumstances safe 
in his hands. This is by no means confined to Kentucky, 
but extends to wherever our people are known. As to his 
influence at home, we can perhaps better let the following 
extract from the leading paper of the Blue Grass Region 
speak. The Paris Kentuckian speaks thus of his long 
pastorate : 

** Possibly of the 1,300 members of the Christian 
church in Paris, there is not to be found in this broad com- 
monwealth, or elsewhere, a more united, devoted, moral 
and religious body of people. They are noted for their 
generosity, hospitality, refinement and culture ; the church 
in Paris gave $15,000 to the cause of education (Ken- 
tucky Univeifity) in the adjoining city of Lexington, 
more than any other one in Kentucky. 

As to Sweeney, it is enough to say that his people for 
whom he has preached almost the fourth of a century, are 
satisfied with him. During the twenty-three years that 
he has been preaching the glorious gospel of Christ here, 
with a power and eloquence and pathos rarely equaled, he 
has never repeated a single sermon. 

He preaches for the restoration of New Testament 
Christianity and for the union of all God's people in the 
greatest cause in all this universe, impressing upon his 
hearers that their loftiest ambition and aspirations should 
be for a virtuous life, and a glorious and blissful immor- 
tality." 

Bro. Sweeney is now, and has been for several years, 
President of the Board of Curators of Kentucky Univer- 
sity, located at Lexington., and now in a prosperous con- 
dition. His connection with this institution, and what 
led to it, contain a lesson. Shortly after he ^vent to 
Paris to live, there arose a considerable trouble among the 



44 Sweeney's sermons. 

friends of the University as to its management and control. 
It was clearly the property of what, to speak rather loosely, 
was called the ^* Christian Church in Kentucky." I say, 
to speak rather loosely, because in fact and strictness of 
speech there is no such thing as the Christian Church in 
Kentucky, that is, no such thing in a corporate or legal 
sense. The charter of the University, therefore, put the 
ownership and control in a Board of Curators, two-thirds 
of whom are to be members of the Christian Church in 
Kentucky, thus putting it as nearly in the possession and 
under the control of the brotherhood in the state as was 
practicable consistent with the nature of the church. 
John B. Bowman, since dead, was Regent, and the Board 
of Curators was a self-perpetuating body#|^ The trouble 
came up between Mr. Bowman, on the one hand, and 
some of the prominent brethren of Lexington on the 
other. The dissatisfaction with Bowman grew and spread 
over the state until nine-tenths of the brethren were op- 
posed to Bowman and his policy. Bowman looked after 
the self-perpetuation of the board, and took good care that 
a majority of the members should be his supporters. So 
the matter ran on for years, the brethren complaining, 
Bowman ruling, and the University languishing. Bro. 
McGarvey, a professor in the University, who was opposed 
to Bowman and sympathized with the brethren, was expelled 
by the Executive Committee for talking and writing as he 
felt. This, of course, made a hero of him, and put him at 
the head of the opposition to the Bowman regime. But what 
was to be done ? The University belonged to the brother- 
hood in the state, but Bowman, sustained by a majority of the 
Board, was running it to suit himself, and not to suit those 
to whom it really belonged and in whose interest it ought 
to have been conducted. But what could the brotherhood 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 45 

do ? The University property was theirs, and yet it was 
not controlled as they would like to have it. It was not 
run in the interest of the people who had established it, 
but was being diverted from them against their will. An 
appeal was made to the congregations in the state to ex- 
press themselves by vote as between McGarvey, who had 
been expelled from the faculty, and who, it was claimed, 
represented the wishes and feelings of the brotherhood, on 
the one hand, and Bowman on the other, who, it was 
claimed, misrepresented the brotherhood of the state. 
The vote that was taken showed that an overwhelming 
majority of the members of the churches voting were op- 
posed to Bowman. This voting scheme Bro. Sweeney op- 
posed on the ground that it would cause divisions in the 
churches and settle nothing at last, and that it was op- 
posed to the Congregationalism of the New Testament. 
And so it turned out. Bowman and the majority of the 
Curators, who sympathized with him, paid no attention to 
the votes of the churches, but pursued their own policy. 
Brother Sweeney, on account of his opposition to the 
voting scheme, was by many set down as a sympathizer 
with Bowman in disregarding the wishes of the churches; 
and even Regent Bowman so construed his position, and 
he was shortly after elected a Curator })y Bowman's 
friends. He accepted the cnratorship. The Curators 
sustained Regent Bowman and disregarded the voice of 
the brotherhood. Another plan was adopted. A con- 
vention of the brotherhood of the state was calliMJ. It 
met in Louisville, and was perliaps the hirgest convention 
of the brotherhood ever held in the state. It was pro- 
posed at this convention to so centralize and organi/e (he 
churches of the state, and to ])rocure such legislation as 
would enable the ''Christian C'hnrch in Kentucky" to own 



46 Sweeney's sermons. 

and control its own educational institutions. Bro. 
Sweeney was the only man who stood up in the conven- 
tion and opposed the plan. He told them that the inau- 
guration of the proposed scheme would be the beginning 
of a career of ruin; that it would be directly in the teeth 
af all the disciples had contended for from the beginning 
of the movement for the restoration of New Testament 
Christianity ; that it was directly opposed to the Congre- 
gationalism of the New Testament ; that they might better 
sink the University to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico 
than to go into such a centralization business; that it 
would open the way for all the school and college difficul- 
ties in the state to run into and distract and divide and 
ultimately ruin the Christian church in Kentucky. 
He argued that the simple Congregationalism of Xew Tes- 
tament Christianity, especially when we consider the time 
and conditions in which it was established, was the strong- 
est proof of its di^dnity. It displays the divine wisdom, 
while ecclesiastical centralization and consolidation display 
the foolishness of men. Many who heard him on that oc- 
casion will readily recall one of his illustrations. Point- 
ing to one of the large windows in the ix>om, he asked, 
**Whyso many panes of glass in that window instead of one? 
The answer is simple. If there were just one, and that one 
were to be broken, it would be a large break, while if one 
of those panes were broken the break would be compara- 
tively small. ''Humanity," said he, "is not strong enough 
yet for such centralization as you propose. True, you do 
not propose to make a creed : but you can centralize and 
consolidate upon property as well as upon doctrine, and 
then divide and break up easier about the property, and 
get further apart about it, get madder and stay mad 
longer about it. And how shall we stop when we have 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 47 

gotten the ownership and control of our educational enter- 
prises? Shall we not soon take charge of our newspapers 
and publishing enterprises, and for the same reasons? 
Then we must for the same reasons take charge of all our 
missionary enterprises. Why not? And it will not be 
very long until our ^ Christian Church in Kentucky' will 
be a big thing. Then we may look out for storms — equi- 
noctial storms. 

*^ Every congregation of disciples united on Christ and 
walking in him, is a divine thing, and we must not bind 
to it or lend it to any mere human expedient or enterprise. 
If you ask me how about these human expedients ? Shall 
we have them ? and who shall own and control them ? I 
answer, we may have them, but let them be owned and 
controlled by individuals or stock companies, and not 
legally or ecclesiastically associated with the churches of 
God, so as to bind them together and then burst them 
asunder." 

The convention, of course, did what it was called to do, 
as most conventions do. It resolved to make the *^ Chris- 
tian Church in Kentucky" a corporate and legal body — a 
body organic, with head and mouth and hands, etc., so that 
it could take hold of and control its own colleges, schools 
and universities, like other corporate bodies with proprie- 
tary powers. And it appointed a committee of twenty to go 
before the Legislature and procure the necessary legishi- 
tion to enable them to carry the scheme into effect. A 
meeting was appointed for the committee in Lexington, 
before going before the Legislature, to get its work well 
in hand. 

The news of the action of the convention spread over 
the state rapidly, and the brethren beaan to fall into 
line promptly, and to make ready to turn over other 



48 Sweeney's sermons. 

educational enterprises in other parts of the state to 
the " Christian Church in Kentucky." To this end the 
trustees of Midway Orphan School resigned, and the 
trustees of Columbia College, making haste to be ready to 
turn over all such enterprises to the '* Christian Church in 
Kentucky." Meantime the members of the committee 
did a good deal of talking and thinking, and when the 
time came for its meeting, it invited other brethren to 
meet with it, among them Bro. Sweeney, and after some 
deliberation and discussion in the right spirit, the com- 
mittee resolved to abandon the centralizing scheme and 
adjourned sine die. In the delibeiation of the committee 
of twenty, Bro. Sweeney told them he believed that 
if they would abandon the scheme, in less than a year 
the difficulty could be overcome in the Board of Curators, 
and the University would be under the control of men 
who would conduct it to the entire satisfaction of the 
brotherhood. 

Shortly after the adjournment of the committee and the 
abandonment of the consolidation scheme, Bro. Sweeney 
and other conservative members of the Board had a con- 
sultation, and arrived at the conclusion that the time had 
come for something to be done for the salvation of the 
University, and that the only way to do it was for Bow- 
man to resign, or in some other way be forced out of con- 
trol, that his continued vindication by the Board would be 
the loss of the University. Accordingly he was conferred 
with and informed that the time had come for him to re- 
sign the Regency ; that whether he had been right or 
WTong in his difference fix)m the brethren, he had lost his 
influence with most of the brethren of the state, without 
whose co-operation he could never conduct the University 
successfully, as it was originally intended to be conducted. 

/ 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 49 

Bowman refused to resign. At the next meeting of the 
board the Regency was abolished. That let Bowman out 
entirely. Bro. Sweeney was elected President of the 
Board, and has been its President ever since, and all is 
peace and prosperity. 

Of course I have not written of this matter to reflect 
upon any one who was connected with the University 
troubles, but for the lesson that was in the matter. How 
shall our newspapers, publishing concerns, educational en- 
terprises, etc., be owned and controlled? This is no un- 
important question, and it is well to consider it when we 
have no particular difficulty on hand. 

Bro. Sweeney has been all his life consistently opposed to 
any kind of consolidation of churches, and to associating our 
churches together by any kind of property interests as 
well as by any statement of doctrines. He has always 
been admired, not only for his wonderful ability, but for 
his firmness and candor in stating the position of those 
with whom he dififered. Discussion has always been to 
him a serious inquiry for truth. In his preaching he 
never sets up a * ' man of straw" — to use a common phrase 
— for the purpose of knocking it to pieces. Nor was it 
ever customary for any fair opponent to complain that 
Bro. Sweeney misrepresented his teaching and practices. 
He has received many very high compliments from the 
best men of the nation. The late President Garfield once 
said of him : '* I would not fear to see Bro. Sweeney enter 
the arena against either Mr. Blaine or Mr. Conkling [who 
at that time were in the height of their popularity as pub- 
lic speakers], but I should be sorry to learn that he had 
abandoned the ministry for a seat in Congress." Hon. G. 
W. Cooper, member of Congress from the Fifth Indiana 
District, once said of him: **In listening to preachei-s — 
4 



50 Sweeney's sermons. 

especially those who have had no polemic training — I 
often feel that much could be said on the other side of the 
question, but when Mr. Sweeney is done with a subject, I 
feel that the best has been said on both sides and the issue 
fairly made. In shorty no gaps have been left down." 

But the limits of this sketch will not permit the intro- 
duction of hundreds of such remarks. Because Bro. 
Sweeney has been the hero of so many public discussions, 
many who are not personally acquainted with him form 
an idea that he is somewhat bitter, cynical and belligerent 
by nature. Such a judgment does him great injustice. 
While he may rise under great pressure to cyclonic force 
of speech and feeling, yet his natural temperament is one 
of great kindness, full of tender pathos and deep sympa- 
thy. No man exhibits less of acrimony in ordinary ser- 
mon than he. While primarily his appeal is to the high- 
est intelligence of his auditors, it never stops short of the 
profoundest awakening of the conscience and deepest pen- 
etration of the heart. 

Because of his prominence and reputation as a debater, 
I have asked him to give me in a short article or letter 
his views of debates and of the issues between our people 
and others that are likely to be discussed in the future, 
and how they should be stated. I here insert his answer, 
that younger preachers may have the benefit of his ex- 
perience : 

My Dear Brother : 

Your questions cannot be satisfactorily answered in a few 
words, but my respect for your judgment prompts me, never- 
theless, to try to comply with your request. There are two 
kinds of debate or contention. One kind is wrong and the 
other is right. It may be said that debating is wrong, and it 
may also be said with equal truth that debating is altogether 
right and proper. Debating simply for its own sake, for the 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 51 

sake of contention, for the sake of strife or variance, and about 
matters of indifference or of little or no practical importance, — 
debate simply for the sake of asserting one's self or one's opin- 
ions, or to gratify one's morbid desire for controversy — is cer- 
tainly reprehensible. And this is the kind of debate the Bible 
condemns. This is the kind I have tried not to do much of. 
I frankly confess, however, that I have not always succeeded 
in entirely satisfying myself with my effort to avoid debating 
in this wrong and reprehensible sense. There is a good deal 
of contrariness in human nature, although it is not totally de- 
praved. On the other hand, debating in the sense of contend- 
ing for the truth, for important truth ; in the sense of contend- 
ing for matters of practical importance, is as evidently right 
and commendable as the other is wrong and reprehensible. As 
long as we differ about matters of practical importance, and 
have earnest, brave, aggressive people left, we shall likely have 
debates, and I think rightly and properly so. And this will be 
the case in all fields of thought and activity. The religious 
field will not be an exception. I see no reason why it should 
be. It is our duty to '^ earnestly contend for the faith which 
was once for all delivered to the saints," as much and as truly 
as it is to " live peaceably with all men.'' When the faith is 
assailed — whether it be its fundamental proposition concerning 
Christ, or any of its precepts or promises — anything of any 
practical importance connected with the faith — it is the duty 
of the Christian who can do so to defend it. It is the duty of 
the soldier of the cross to stand by his colors and never to let 
the banner trail in the dust if he can hold it up. So I liave 
believed, and have tried to act accordingly. I know there is a 
morbid sentimentalism, or it might be called a maudlin pietism, 
that unfits minds afflicted with it, or disposed that way, f(^r any 
very positive or aggressive work in the church of God, or any- 
where else, that is opposed to all debates. Persons thus af- 
flicted or disposed are opposed especially to religious debates, 
and I have no doubt they think tlunr o])position is gnninded 
in supcn-ior piety or deep religious feeling. Tliey often spc^ak 
dis|)aragingly of debating and of dc^baters. Such i>ersons gvu- 
erally occupy, or are on the hunt for, positions of ease and 



52 Sweeney's sermons. 

profit made for them by the more earnest and aggressive labors 
of those they flippantly and ungraciously and ungratefully dis- 
parage. Had it not been for the earnest contention and bold 
discussions of their predecessors, these complainers, many of 
them, would never have been heard of. The churches founded 
by the bold and heroic apostle Paul were soon full of senti- 
mental, indolent and compromising teachers, who desired to 
rival that apostle in the esteem and afiections of the disciples, 
while at the same time they gave way to Judaizers and Pagan- 
izers, and allowed the churches to be corrupted and many of 
them destroyed, rather than earnestly contend for the faith 
that had been delivered to the saints. It was thus that what 
is called episcopacy and papacy, and the many heresies of the 
early centuries were brought in and the minds of the disciples 
were corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ. This 
very thing, more perhaps than his bonds, burdened the earn- 
est soul of the great apostle to the Gentiles in the later years 
of his life. And there are those even now in churches mod- 
eled after New Testament churches, who, for want of better un- 
derstanding it may be, or for love of popularity possibly, or who 
may consider a kind of peace cheap at such a price ; anyhow, 
there are those, I am sorry to know, who are not earnestly con- 
tending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the 
saints, but are rather compromising the truth by giving way to 
all sorts of schemes and movements popular among the de- 
nominations and outsiders ; seeming to think it displa3^s greater 
piety to compromise than to debate ; seeming to think they 
have gotten upon a higher spiritual plane than have such per- 
sons as sometimes engage in public debates. 

Our people are not likely to have as many debates in the 
future as they have had in the past. There are not now, and not 
likely to be, the same reasons for our having joint debates that 
have existed in the past. We are getting to be better under- 
stood than we were years ago. And we can now, in most parts 
of the country, get a hearing without joint debates to bring 
the people out. When I was a boy our preachers could not 
get the ears of the people. The preachers misrepresented 
us and kept the people away from our meetings. Our preach- 



LIFE OP JOHN S. SWEENEY. 53 

ers resorted to joint discussions to get the people to hear. That 
necessity is not upon us now. While I have had a good many- 
discussions in my life, I have of late years declined a good 
many. Where our people have access to the people of a com- 
munity it is better generally to have preaching than to have 
debates, and I make it a rule to so advise them whenever and 
wherever I feel fre'b to give my opinion. 

Still, we shall have debates; perhaps fewer in the older 
states and portions of the country, but more especially in the 
West ; and where they are conducted by wise, capable and 
good men, the cause of truth will be promoted by them, as it 
has been in the past. 

He who wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth has nothing to fear or lose from public discussions — 
conducted in the right Bpirit, of course. 

WITH WHOM SHALL WE DEBATE ? 

Well, we shall likely have to contend with unbelievers, and 
they are of many types and shades. Of course, we cannot prof- 
itably notice all their petty differences among themselves. Let 
them discuss such differences themselves, as Christians discuss 
their differences. But it is a noticeable fact that unbelievers 
generally have nothing to offer the world, nothing to present, 
nothing to urge, nothing to defend. Their work is for the 
most part a negative one. They are objectors. They question 
almost everything and affirm nothing. We should not under- 
take to discuss with them everything they question. Should 
we undertake to do so, our discussions would be endless and 
fruitless. We should discuss with thom only the vital issue 
between us. Christianity rests upon one fundamental propo- 
sition, " That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
If this is true, Christianity is true; if this should turn out to be 
false, then the whole system built upon it is also false. Only 
this issue, therefore, needs to be, and only this should be, dis- 
cussed with unbelievers. The issue might be more clearly 
made for such as may not understand just what is meant by ''the 
Christ, the Son of the living God," by our simply affirming the 
resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This involves tlie truth of 
what we mean by his IxMng *' the Christ, the Son of tht^ living 



54 Sweeney's sermons. 

God," and is the vital and fundamental question of difference 
between believers and unbelievers. It is the only question that 
it is worth while for us to debate with the unbelievers. No 
matter about incidental points of difference. They will go 
with the fundamental question about Jesus. 

THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. 

We should decline to discuss with unbelievers any question 
about the inspiration of the scriptures. That is an inside ques- 
tion, and even as such none of us may perfectly understand it. 
We have the right to use the scriptures in debate with infidels 
as they use the writings of the ancients. We need only to show 
that the scriptures are as credible as the testimonies they use. 
We need only to show, for instance, that the writings of Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, John, and Paul are credible histories ; and to show 
this, just as they establish the credibleness of the writings of 
Josephus and Tacitus. We are under no obligation to make 
our historical evidences better or more credible than historical 
evidences they use. Upon these testimonies and others we 
can use, we should establish the fact of the resurrection of 
Jesus. This done, w^e shall hold the ground in dispute between 
us, and can afford to rest our case, as to historical and exter- 
nal evidence. Skeptics generally seem more anxious to discuss 
side issues or incidental questions, but we should not allow 
them to lead us away from the real and fundamental question 
of difference. There are a great many questions incidental to 
this fundamental one about which much can be said pro and 
con. and which possibly neither believers nor unbelievers un- 
derstand perfectly, or ever shall. Let us carry the main posi- 
tion and every other truth will go wath it. 

WITH KOMAN CATHOLICS 

we should discuss only the fundamental question of church 
authority It is altogether useless for us to undertake to dis- 
cuss any other question with them till this one is settled. In 
fact, they will not discuss many of their doctrines, traditions 
and practices in the light of the Bible. They cannot admit the 
Bible to be an infallible and an all-sufficient rule of faith and 
practice— a standard by which all alleged religious truth is to 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 55 

be tested. We can admit no other. The infallibility and au- 
thority of the church, therefore, is the vital question between 
us, and the only one it is worth while to discuss. They are in 
the affirmative. We should hold them strictly to this ques- 
tion. The Bible is our only standard of religious truth ; but it 
is not worth while for us to appeal to that to prove or disprove 
anything to people who have another standard — one we cannot 
recognize. Let them establish it first of all. This is the only 
question we can discuss with Koman Catholics with any profit 
to the truth. 

WITH THE PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS. 

While there are practical or even important doctrinal differ- 
ences among us, we shall likely have debates with the Protest- 
ant parties. With what are known as Pedobaptists we differ 
on at least four questions of more or less importance — two of 
them practical and two doctrinal : 

1. The Action of Baptism, By Pedobaptists there are three 
different actions performed, and each one is called baptism — 
immersion, pouring, and sprinkling — while w^e practice only 
immersion, and believe that only that is the action of baptism. 
While this difference exists on this practical question there 
will be discussion — and there ought to be. Discussion will be 
irrepressible. The issue should be sharply defined, so that the 
real point of difference may be understood and only that dis- 
cussed. We teach affirmatively that immersion is baptism, as 
to action, and practice only that. Our relation, therefore, to 
immersion is an affirmative one. If anybody denies this, and 
there is to be a debate about it, we are logically and fairly in 
the affirmative, and should so appear in such a dc^bate. And 
when we affirm simply that immersion is baptism, this is the 
extent of our aflirmative teaching and covers our practice. 
This, therefore, is the extent of our affirmative relation to this 
question. Our affirmative tc^aching and our practice an' gen- 
erally conceded to be scriptural and right, and consequtMitly 
there is not likely to be, and ouglit not to \n\ nny dcl^atc on 
this question with us logically and fairly in the alllrniativo. 
But as to any (>///6^v' action for baptism, wr are doctrinally and 
practically in the nogativ(\ We deny it and rcfnse to practice 



56 Sweeney's sermons. 

it, no matter what it is. Every one sustains logically an affirm- 
ative relation to his own practice. An intelligent and fair- 
minded person can hardly deny this. Pedobaptists generally, 
while admitting the validity of immersion, practice also both 
pouring and sprinkling. Their relation, therefore, to pouring 
and sprinkling is an affirmative one. And I have noticed that 
always when the question as to the proper action of baptism is 
discussed, no matter what the proposition may be, the debate is 
always about pouring and sprinkling. Yet immersion is gen- 
erally admitted to be valid, while pouring and sprinkling are 
questioned. What, now, is our proper relation to such a de- 
bate ? And what is the proper relation of those who practice 
pouring and sprinkling to such a debate ? Ours is manifestly 
wholly negative, while theirs is manifestly affirmative. And I 
insist that in our future debates on this issue we should de- 
mand the right to stand in our proper logical relation to the 
point of difference, and should make this right a condition of 
our future discussions. This is a matter of more importance 
than will at first appear to persons without experience. I think 
I have learned the lesson of its importance. For several years 
I have refused to discuss this issue without a statement fair to 
my cause. I offer to affirm simply that immersion is baptism, 
or to deny that anything else is, and by this demand for fairness 
and justice to my cause, T have nearly gotten out of the de- 
bating business, at least as respects this issue. Other brethren 
who debate, not seeing this matter just as I do, or not feeling 
its importance as I do, , or at any rate not acting upon it as I 
do, are getting into debates of this issue, while I am getting 
out. The men of large experience in debate on the other side 
want no better thing than to debate two or three days about 
their practice of pouring and sprinkling, with an immersionist 
in the affirmative, and hence in the lead, with nothing to do 
themselves but deny. Such a debate as this makes glad the 
heart of the old and experienced Pedobaptist debater. 

I am aware that in the past, immersionists have accepted 
propositions unfair to themselves and unjust to their cause ; it 
may have been for an opportunity to get the ears of people 
they could not get without discussion, possibly for want of a 



LIFE OP JOHN S. SWEENEY. 57 

proper understanding of the issue and the logical relations of 
of the parties to it ; or it may have been in some cases on ac- 
count of too great anxiety to get into a debate ; no matter for 
what reason, we should quit it. We should not put our cause 
at such a disadvantage for the sake of public debate. We can 
get a hearing now without joint debate, and we can afford,' so 
long as our opponents will neither deny our practice nor affirm 
their own, to let the matter go thus before the people — our 
practice unquestioned because unquestionable, theirs ques- 
tioned and crying out in vain for some one to defend it. This 
ought to be a logical situation satisfactory to us. 

2. The Proper Subject of Baptism. Here again our difference 
from Pedobaptists is a practical one, and so important that it is 
likely to be, and ought to be, and will be, discussed while it 
exists. Indeed, the difference is about as important as any 
difference about baptism could be, and a practical difference 
about baptism is as important as a difference about any posi- 
tive religious ordinance, and we may not minify the importance 
of any ordinance of divine appointment. 

But now as to the relations of parties to the issue. We teach 
that penitent believers in Jesus Christ who have not been bap- 
tized are scriptural subjects of the ordinance, and we conform 
our practice to this teaching. If any one denies this, and thus 
takes issue with us, that puts us in the affirmative. But Pedo- 
baptists will not so deny. Hence, we can fairly have no dis- 
cussion of this issue, with us in the affirmative. And here 
again our affirmative teaching and our practice stand unques- 
tioned. But Pedobaptists go further, and affirm that infants 
are proper subjects of the ordinance, and practice accordingly. 
It is clear that the relation of Pedobaptists to this issue is an 
affirmative one, while ours is wholly negative ; and we should 
require that the issue should be so stated and so discussed. 

3. The Design of Baptism. This issue is rather doctrinal 
than practical. Still it is important. Disciples \vwq\\ witli 
great unanimity tliat in its proper place baptism is for the re- 
mission of sins, in the sense of an ai)i)ropriating condition, 
and this is generally denied by the popuhir Protestimt parties 
of the day and of this country. Our relation to this issue is. 



58 Sweeney's se-rmons. 

therefore, properly affirmative. We should not allow a false 
issue to be made in the discussion of this question. We do not 
hold that baptism is for the remission of sins in the same sense 
that the blood of Christ is. We see in the love of God the 
prime and moving cause, in the life and death of Jesus the 
procuring cause, and in the sinner's faith, penitence and obe- 
dience the appropriating cause of remission. It is only in this 
sense that we teach that baptism is for remission. On this 
issue we are in the affirmative, logically, and in our debates 
with those who deny this teaching we should be willing to 
stand in the affirmative. 

4. Influence of the Spirit in Conversion of the Sinner. We are 
all agreed that the Spirit does influence the sinner in his con- 
version. We agree as to the fact. But as to how that influ- 
ence is exerted we difler from the denominations generally. 
That the Spirit influences the sinner through and by means of 
the truth of the gospel we all agree. But the denominations 
generally go further, and affirm that the Spirit also operates 
immediately upon the sinner's mind and heart. This we deny. 
To the extent that we affirm the denominations agree with us. 
But they affirm further than we can agree with them. When 
it is affirmed that the Spirit operates immediately upon the sin- 
ner's heart in conversion, we deny it ; and that is the issue. 
To it, manifestly, the denominations sustain an affirmative re- 
lation, while we as manifestly sustain a negative one. Any- 
body can see, that whatever the proposition may be, the debate 
will always be about an influence that others affirm and that 
we deny. We should, therefore, always insist upon our right 
to be in the negative in the discussion of this point of difi'er- 
ence. 

Do you ask me what is to be gained by being thus particular 
to have the issues clearly stated ? There is a good deal to be 
gained by it. In the first place, the man who affirms a nega- 
tive, or affirms on an issue to which he practically and logically 
sustains a negative relation, always puts his cause at a great dis- 
advantage in the debate. All experienced debaters understand 
this. And in the second place, we ought to insist upon occu- 
pying our logical relation to all points in dispute to show how 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 59 

little we teach and practice that is really disputed. I have had men 
of large experience and great ability as debaters to insist on my 
affirming in a discussion of their practice, just that we might 
have an equal number of affirmatives in a proposed debate. I 
shall never do that again (I have done it), without my mind 
undergoes a very great change. He who has most disputed 
teachings and practices has logically most affirmatives. He 
who teaches and practices little that is questionable has little 
to affirm. And there is where our people stand to-day. What 
are our questioned practices? What are our disputed teachings? 
The fact is, that practically we occupy undisputed ground. 
Our debates with our religious neighbors are generally about 
their practices, not about ours. The single doctrinal point that 
baptism is for remission of sins, is about the only disputed 
position we hold. 

Of course you will understand that I have only aimed to call 
attention to the important issues that have been discussed by 
our people and that we are likely to be called upon to debate 
in the future. Very truly yours, 

J. S. Sweeney. 

Bro. Sweeney's sermons are characterized by wonderful 
knowledge of nature and human nature. He does not 
read many books, but lie has the wonderful faculty of 
discerning whether a book is worth reading before he has 
read half a dozen pages in it. He has no time to spend 
upon a book that is not a really valuable one. His library 
is in outward form rather a motley one. His books are 
not in sets or series, but if there is a rare book in morals, 
theology, science, or lighter literature, it is pretty apt to 
have a place on his shelves. 

Among his people he is not a remarkably wordy man. 
His pastoral visits are not marked by much conversation 
nor demonstration, but his })resence and s|)irit seem to 
throw over the sick or atliicted n benisoii of pence and 
rest. They cannot recall ujucli that he said, ))Ui the fact 



60 Sweeney's sermons. 

remains with them that he has been with them and they 
are better. 

It may not be amiss in closing this sketch, to present a 
brief estimate of his character by one of the deacons of 
the church at Paris, prepared at the special request of the 
writer of this sketch : 

''The Christian Church in Paris, Ky., twenty-three 
years ago was without a pastor. The undersigned was 
one of a committee appointed to secure a competent 
preacher to take charge of the congregation, who would 
instruct them in the sacred duties and doctrine of the 
Christian religion. Elder John S. Sweeney, then on the 
bright, sunny side of life, and in the full maturity of a 
splendid and vigorous manhood, had some years before 
emigrated West, expecting to identify himself with her 
people and *grow up with the country.' At the time 
of which we speak, he had already won fame and dis- 
tinction, not only as a great logical debater and reasoner, 
but as a preacher of wonderful power and pathos, among 
the brotherhood generally. Passing through Kentucky, 
he was invited to preach for us. We then extended to 
him a cordial and unanimous invitation to become our 
pastor. He hesitated about resigning the fine position he 
was then holding, and did not give us an answer for some 
weeks. Chicago was then booming, and every indication 
clearly pointed out that she was soon to become one of the 
most populous cities of the world. These facts were all 
commented upon, and he had intended to make some small 
investments. Had he remained there and carried out his 
original intention, he would have been one of the million- 
aires of to-day ; but having dedicated himself to preach the 
glorious gospel of Christ, and throwing aside every other am- 
bition (abandoning the profession of the law, with all its 



LIFE OF JOHN S. SWEENEY. 61 

alluring fascinations and prospects, that was soon to waft 
his contemporary friend and brother preacher, James A. 
Garfield, into the presidential chair), he decided to return 
to his own native and beloved Kentucky. Paris, with its 
beautiful and romantic streams running through the city 
limits, together with the surrounding scenery and her 
bright, sunny skies, has been his home. 

Kentucky's political history has been well illustrated by 
Clay, Crittenden and Breckinridge, and the Christian re- 
ligion by the beloved and venerated Stone, Johnson, Gano 
and Rains. These great men, with their superior excel- 
lence and wonderful endowments, have been succeeded by 
their peers in all respects. 

Nature occasionally at long intervals produces a great 
man, a born leader among men. 

A man of great erudition, culture and intellectual skill, 
an original thinker and possessed of broad and liberal 
ideas, it has never been any trouble for Bro. Sweeney to 
get up and impress them with ease, facility and volubility. 
Preaching for twenty-three years in the city of Paris to a 
congregation of more than eight hundred members, in all 
respects as well cultivated, educated and intelligent a 
people as can be found in the Commonwealth, he has 
never made a repetition of a single sermon, a thing un- 
precedented in the preaching world, in my opinion. He 
preaches with great eloquence and pathos the power and 
beauty of the primitive gospel, as did the apostles of eTesus, 
and for the restoration of New Testament Christianity and 
the union of all God's people upon the greatest and noblest 
cause in the universe ; and impresses u})on the people 
that their loftiest aspirations should be for a glorious and 
blissful immortality. 

As a bold, fearless and intrepid debater, he is ever ready 



62 Sweeney's sermons. 

to break a lance with any respectable opponent for the 
great cause he holds so dear ; and in this respect he ranks 
with Mr. Campbell himself. 

His social life, with all his geniality and mirthfulness, 
has ever been the delight of his friends, embellished as it 
is with all the graces which a benevolent heart, a playful 
temper and happy imagination impart to his discourse 
and conversation. 

During the rapid and ceaseless flight of these many 
years, a whole generation has passed and gone, carrying with 
it many of the purest and noblest Christians of earth. 

At the nuptial altar, at the baptismal waters, and at the 
grave, he has ever been the same efiicient, devoted and 
faithful Christian minister. 

A Deacon of the Christian Church, Paris, Ky. 



SWEENEY'S SERMONS. 



SEKMON I. 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled 
Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted 
from the simplicity that is in Christ," 1 Cor. xi : 3. 

IN making our estimate of the gospel, if we would be 
well guided, there are two or three things we should 
constantly hold in mind. 

1. That it is the power of God for saving men from sin. 
This is simply a scripture statement, and needs not to be 
argued. Paul says (Kom. i: 16.) ^* I am not ashamed of 
the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salva- 
tion to every one that believeth : to the Jew first, and also 
to the Greek." It is the power by which God proposes to 
save Jews and Gentiles individually. That's the meaning 
of ** every one." It is distributive. It means the gospel 
is the power of God to save each individual of the race. 
It is God's power as method and as means. And if he 
will ever save any one by any other means, he has not re- 
vealed to us his intention to do so, and we cannot then^- 
fore know the fact. The gospel is the only means known 
to men, and the only means we can have anything to do 
with, for the salvation of men from sin. 

2. Our Savior, when he liad done tlie necessary prepar- 
atory work he had to do in his own ])or8onal nunistry, 
ffave Commission and Commandment to his disciples to 



64 SWE£NEY\s 8ERMON8. 

'' preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark xvi : 16.) 
They were not to preach the gospel to kings, or governors, 
or priests, for the people ; but to every individual. Every 
creature means the whole creation distributively, individ- 
ually. Now, he knew the capacity of men ; what they 
were capable and what they were incapable of understand- 
ing. He knew the ignorance of men generally and par- 
ticularly; their incapability of grappling with and compre- 
hending profound and abstruse questions, of law, of phil- 
osophy, of science, of theology. And yet he commanded 
his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature. 

3. ^Ye should also observe the fact that when his disci- 
ples went forth to preach the gospel, when they preached 
it and where they preached it, the people did, on hearing 
a single presentation of it, understand it so far as it was 
necessary that they should, and believe and obey it, and 
did receive and enjoy the salvation it brought; in some in- 
stances hundreds and possibly thousands in a single day; 
in some instances on the public highway; sometimes at 
their houses; sometimes in the day time, and again at 
midnight ; they heard a single presentation of the gospel, 
understood, believed and obeyed it, and rejoiced in its sal- 
vation the same day, and even the same hour of the night. 
All this we learn from Acts of Apostles. From these 
facts, unquestionable as facts, there comes to my mind, 
with irresistible force, this conclusion: The gospel of 
Christ, preached by the first disciples, was a very simple 
something; something suited well to the capacity of the 
people, the unlearned as w^ell as the learned; something 
they could readily understand and receive. Is not the 
conclusion a necessary one, from the facts named? Not 
only so, but it seems to me eminently reasonable that it 
should be so. There are questions of philosophy, ques- 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 65 

tions of science and questions of moral casuistry that are 
very profound, very abstruse, and even very mysterious; 
quite enough so for the greatest intellectual exercise and 
highest culture, and severest mental training of men and 
women; enough so for their life-long intellectual devel- 
opment. And this seems to me well and wisely so. It 
seems to me to be right that there should be questions for 
men and women to study and work on for generations. 
This is a necessity for the intellectual and moral devel- 
opment of men and women. God has made wise pro- 
vision for us thus in the constitution of nature and its 
adjustment to i,he wants of our nature. There are many 
questions one may study all his life and even then know 
comparatively little about them. But the gospel of 
Christ is not one of these. It was not intended to be of 
such a character. It is God's appointed means of salva- 
tion from sin, and the sinner is not required to carry his 
soul, burdened with sin, and his conscience with guilt, 
through a life-time, because he is unable to understand 
and appropriate the means of relief. 

While I do not believe the popular doctrine of total de- 
pravity, yet I must confess that there is a perverseness 
about human nature in all its individualizations with 
which I have had to do, or of which I have had much 
knowledge ; a sort of proneness to be contrary and to go 
wrong. Almost all men and women seem more disposed 
to know what they can not and ought not to know than to 
know what they can and ought to know. Hence it is that 
almost all men and women have a fondness for finding out 
secrets, for fathoming mysteries, for seeking after imprac- 
ticable knowledge, for knowing unrevealed and unknowa- 
ble things; as if such things were of greater value and im- 
portance than the simple things that may and ought to be 
5 



66 Sweeney's sermons. 

known and understood. Many seem more disposed to 
know all tiiat other people know, and to attend to other 
people's business, than to find out what they ought to 
know and to attend to their own business. They would 
always rather know what God has not revealed than to 
study and profit by what he has revealed. They think all 
wisdom comes from afar, clothed in clouds and mists. AVe 
are slow to believe that a man is really wise or great whom 
we have known all our lives, and just because we have so 
known him; but one coming from afar, of whom we know 
nothing, he may be great and wise, and just because we 
know nothing about him. And just so about doiug, as 
well as about knowijig. Men are disposed to do what they 
cannot and ought not to do rather than what they can and 
ought to do. 

A few years ago the people nearly all went wild over 
the hypothesis of evolution. It seemed to many people 
full of beauty, wisdom and importance, just because they 
knew nothing about it, and nobody could know anything 
about it. '*In the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth," and ''created man in his own image," are 
statements that have very little beauty or wisdom in them 
for some people, just because they are revealed things, and 
can be understood tolerably well. 

Of course we lay all this perverseness and contrariness 
in our natures to the fall in Adam. I do not desire es- 
pecially to be heterodox, any more than I would go out of 
my way to bo called orthodox, but I have not a single 
doubt about the fact that we have laid entirely too much 
on Adam and Eve. AVe ought to practice quitting it 
a while. It is not magnanimous. It is cowardly. Be- 
sides, we cannot get rid of all our sins in that way, and 
should not try to. 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 67 

The crookediie«t3 in our nature, of which I have been 
speaking, is traceable beyond the '4all," as we call the sin 
of our fbreparents. Our mother Eve had it before she ate 
the forbidden fruit. It was here she tripped, just as 
here thousands of women have tripped since — and men, 
too — I mean no cowardice. It is contemptible. Let us 
see how it was: ^^And the serpent said unto the woman. 
Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the 
day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye 
shall be as God's, knowing good and evil ; and when the 
woman [thought she] saw that the tree was good for 
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be 
desired to make one wdse, she took of the fruit thereof and 
did eat." There it is! the whole story! The woman 
thought it better to *'be as Gods" than to be simply a 
woman; better to know what ^*God doth know" than to 
know what he had revealed; better to ''eat" w^hat was 
forbidden than what was permitted; better to have her 
''eyes opened" to the forbidden than to behold all the 
beauties of Paradise; and she went wrong. Paul knew 
this weakness and perverseness of our nature, and he 
knew also the cunning of the serpent, and hence his well 
grounded fear: "I fear, lest by any means, as the ser- 
pent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds 
should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Clirist." 

But let me not be misunderstood. When I contend that 
the gospel of Christ is very simple, and brought down to 
the capacity of all responsible persons; so that the un- 
learned, as well as the learned, may understand it so far as 
it is necessary that they should, and believe it, and obey 
it, and be saved from their sins, I do not mean that tliere 
are no mysteries in the IVible, or even none in the gospel 
itself. Certainly not. On the contrary, I am free to say 



bo SWEENEY 8 SERMONS. 

that there are a great mauy things in the Bible I have 
never been able to understand; mysteries I have never 
been able to fathom. To me there are some mysteries 
about the gospel that I have about concluded I shall never 
understand in this life, and probably not fully in the life 
to come. This is especially true as to the reason of things. 
There are in the Bible seeming discrepancies; even things 
that, with all the light and knowledge I have, look like 
contradictions. There are things God is said to have done, 
and commanded to be done, that if they are right accord- 
ing to our commonly received standards, I am unable to 
prove it to the satisfaction of objectors, or even to my own 
satisfaction. I don't doubt that they are right. I believe 
they are. But I believe it because God did or commanded 
them, and not because I see their rightness myself. There 
are curious persons of little knowledge who suppose that if 
they can find something in the Bible that the preacher can 
not explain to everybody's satisfaction, they have accom- 
plished something very wonderful, and set up a sufficient 
excuse for rejecting the book altogether. But this is a 
prodigious mistake. We should not expect to be able to 
understand all the ways of God ; to be able to see the rea- 
son in his mind for all he does, or even for all he com- 
mands us to do. No doubt there is in his mind a good 
reason for all he says and does, whether recorded in the 
Bible or in nature ; but it is certain that we cannot, in all 
cases, see the reason. Our scope of vision is very much 
limited as compared with the infinite. God does every- 
thing he does, and orders every thing he orders, in full 
view of and with reference to every thing else in the whole 
universe, in all time and eternity. If we could take so 
much within our visual p^ane, then we might see the rea- 
son for all he does. God is necessarily a mystery to us, 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 69 

just as a man is a mystery to a little child, and for the 
same reason. A child cannot comprehend the reasons that 
may be in the mind of a man for his conduct. The wisest 
ways of a parent are often mysteries to his own child, just 
because the parent sees more than the child can see, as a 
child. Were this not so, a child would not need parental 
government. If it could comprehend all the reasons in the 
mind of the parent, it could just as well govern itself. 
The larger scope and superior knowledge of the parent is 
the ground and reason for faith in him on the part of the 
child. Just so, and more so, is it necessary that men 
should walk by faith in reference to God. He is infinite, 
we finite. He governs all worlds; we cannot govern one — 
or a state, or a county, or a city, or ourselves, or even our 
tongues. And shall we demand a reason that w^e can see 
for all he does or commands? Preposterous! impudent! 
wicked ! 

Men do not require so much of God in nature. We do 
not understand nature any better than we do the Bible. 
It is full of mysteries even to the wisest men. Why God 
created nature as he did? why this and that law? wliy he 
governs as he does? These are questions we can never an- 
swer, even to our own satisfaction. If we could create 
and equip and stock a world, and Avere going to do it, we 
would beyond doubt leave out a great many things we find 
in this, with our present knowledge ; yet I have no idea 
that, on the wliole, our effort would result in an inq)rovo- 
ment upon the world Ave have. None of us believe we 
could successfully run tliis world if the reins were given 
into our hands. We would Avreck it. 

What we call nature, then, and the Bible, are very 
like each other in that they are botli lull of mysteries 
to men. We cannot know a great deal, it is true, l>ut 



70 Sweeney's serivions. 

we can and ought to be consistent, and we must be if 
we would convince even ourselves that we are honest. We 
ought not to accept nature as it is, without complaint, and 
fall in with its laws, and get a living out of it, full of mys- 
teries as it is; and then turn about and demand that there 
shall be no mysteries in the Bible, another book by the 
same Author, or we will reject it. We ought to deal fairly 
with the Bible. If it be of God, mysteries in it are to be 
expected. In fact, it may be said they are a necessity, 
because he is infinite and his ways are past finding out to 
the finite mind. 

I remember once, on my way to Texas, falling in with 
a very sprightly and very loquacious Secularist, I think he 
called himself. There were some fifteen or twenty of us 
on the same palace coach all the way from St. Louis into 
Texas. Our Secularist friend was a great reasoner, as 
nearly all talking skeptics are. He seemed very deter- 
mined in his mind on demolishing the Bible, and very 
zealous in his work ; much surprised that some one had not 
turned aside to brush it out of the way of thinking peoj)le 
long ago. He attacked nearly every one on the coach. In 
fact he bored us. The discrepancies, contradictions, and 
horrid inhumanities of the Bible, made up his theme. 
Most of the passengers avoided him. It is well to avoid 
such persons, as a general thing. There is not much to be 
made by reasoning with them. It is not the Temedy for 
their ailment. An epidemic of cholera or yellow fever will 
reach their cases quicker, as these strike them where they 
live. But our friend kept up the fire. lN"ow, there was a 
poor consumptive aboard, going South for a pinch of life, 
as most people will do in that condition. We all 
svmpathized with him, and gave him constant little atten- 
tions, as people generally will do in Christian countries. 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 71 

But, in course of time, our skeptical friend attacked 
the poor, sick man, and was coming down on his Bible, which 
the sick man had 'with him, with a torrent of emj)hasis. I re- 
member he read from the Bible the passage in which God said 
to Saul, ^^Kow go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy 
all that they have, and spare them not ; but slay both man 
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and 
ass ; " and, when he had read this, he slammed the book with 
one hand against his other hand with a great noise and 
much seeming indignation, denouncing the passage as 
'' unworthy of God or civilized man." I was not far from 
him, and my mouth went off. I couldn't help it. I asked 
him what he knew about God, and where he got his infor- 
mation. He was ready. Nature was his book, he said, 
loudly, and the only book that reveals God. Now 
just a few days before, there had been a great earthquake 
somewhere east, that had ruined a considerable city, swal- 
lowing up, of course, ^^both man and woman, infant and 
suckling ; " and we had hardly got done reading about it. 
Of course I thought of it, and, of course, called his atten- 
tion to it, and wanted to know if that was his God, and if 
it didn't look a great deal like smiting the Amalekites — 
''man and woman, infant and suckling." And from tliis 
I went on to notice a good many other things in nature 
that seem hard, and inconsistent, and contradictory, and 
mysterious, just like some things in the Bible; and insisted 
that he should try his hand on these passages in his Bible. 
I pressed, and he faltered. Of course he did. That was 
not the kind of work he was best at. Skeptics are goner- 
ally better at finding fault with things than in explaining 
things; better at destruction than construetloii — :uul I 
have known even some Christians so. In fac^t, it is c^nsier 
work for anybody. I plied him with the difficult passages 



72 Sweeney's sePv^ioxs. 

in his book until he got to fretting so in the harness I had 
to quit. But I have related this incident to show that 
there are as great ditiiculties about explaining tiie myster- 
ies of the book of nature as the mysteries of the other 
Book. No doubt earthquakes, cyclones and other natural 
occurrences that destroy property and kill "both man and 
woman, irfant and suckling," are all right and necessary 
in their times and places, and that there are reasons for 
them, though we may not always be able to show the rea- 
sons. They are often too deep, or too high, for us. They 
are (dean out of our scope of vision. Xo doubt there was 
wisdom in and a reason for the smiting of the Amalekites, 
''man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and ass," 
though we may not be able to make all men see them 
especially unwilling men, or even to see them for our- 
selves. There was a reason for it within the scope of the 
infinite, though we may not reach it for several billions of 
years yet. We explore the universe slowly. 

It seems never to have occurred to some people that 
where in the works of God they can see no reason, it is 
because of their short-sightedness. But they think that 
where they can ^ee no reason there is none I What a won- 
derful being is man, specially in his own estimation, and 
more especially if he only has a trifle of skepticism about 
him! 

There is another important respect in which the Bible 
and nature are alike. While, as we have seen, they both 
have mysteries in them, they both have a simple side. In 
each case the side of mysteries is God's side, and the 
simple side is man's. Of course that is just as it should 
be. There are no mysteries to God ; and man is the simple 
party, though, it must be granted, that some men are so 
wise in their own conceit, as not alwavs to see it that way. 



V 

THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 73 

Who understands perfectly the simplest of what we call 
the sciences ? For example, who understands the science 
of agriculture, the most practical of them all ? Of course 
there are many who know a good deal about it, and all of 
us know more or less about it ; but that is not the question : 
Who understands it perfectly ? Who can explain all its 
facts and phenomena? Who can fathom all its mysteries? 
Well, the fact is, that nobody will profess thus to understand 
it — unless it be possibly some young man recently pulled 
or paid through a scientific course. Who can tell why the 
same grain and grass and water will produce wool on a 
sheep, hair on a pig and feathers on a goose ? Oh ! it is 
something in the nature of the animal, one may say. 
Correct. But what is that something in the nature of the 
animal ? All the animals are made of pretty nearly the 
same material, are they not ? Then why the difference ? 
There we stop. There we have to stop. It is enough for 
my purpose to say what has to be admitted, that one side 
of even the most practical of the sciences is mysterious all 
along the line. But then there is a simple side also. The 
old negro that does'nt know one letter of the alphabet 
from another — that could'nt say agriculture to-morrow, 
after hearing it said a half dozen times to-day, if a fortune 
depended upon it — that old negro can plow and plant, sow 
and reap, thresh and grind, cook and eat, and live. He 
can know enough of the simple side of nature, the side 
God has turned toward us, to catch on, and get a living 
out cf it; and he has sense enough to do so, too, witliout 
bothering his head greatly about the other side, the uf)per 
side, the side of mysteries, God's side. He can })l()w and 
plant, and let God make to grow. And so we all have to 
do. Who is so silly as to refuse to sow until some one 
explains to him all the mysteries of germination, growth, 



74 Sweeney's sermons. 

and reproduction ? We have ull found out that we can 
run the simple side in nature, while God runs the other 
side — we the lower side and he the upper side — and thus 
out of the co-operation we get our living. 

Then, again, we all know how to eat. That's one little 
matter in the essentials of which men generally agree. 
We all eat, the learned and the unlearned, black and 
white, male and female. Even the greatest cranks eat. 
Our side of that matter is very simple, though so impor- 
tant to the building up and the sustenance of our bodies. 
But who understands the other side even of the simple 
science of eating ? Who understands all about how it is 
that what we eat is digested, distributed and assimilated, 
so as to build up in equal and proper proportions all the 
parts of an animal body ? Portions of what we eat go to 
make bones ; other portions, muscle ; and other portions, 
veins ; and other parts, blood ; other parts, skin — white, 
black, red. Other portions, hair — black hair, brown hair, 
red hair — other portions make ears ; other parts, eyes — 
black, brown, blue, gray — other portions still, make brains, 
more or less, and of different degrees of fineness of text- 
ure ! Who understands all this ? Who can explain all 
the mysteries of this wonderful work? Of course we may 
and we ought to learn much about this wonderful work of 
God in building our bodies. But there are many things 
about it we are not very likely to ever know, and that it 
is not essential we ever should know. On the other hand, 
our side of the matter, the side we have to see to and 
operate, is so very simple in its essential particulars, that 
the unlearned almost as well as the learned can work it. 
And, by the way, it is a noticeable fact that often, if not 
generally, the unlettered negro succeeds in making, in 
many fundamental respects, a sounder and stronger body 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 75 

than does the most scientific man or woman — better stom- 
achs, and eyes and teeth. Especially does he have better 
success than most hygienic cranks. 

But, now, who is so silly as to refuse to eat until some 
one explains to his satisfaction and comprehension, all the 
mysteries of body-making ; and, then, all about the con- 
nection between bodies and spirits ? Such a person would 
be apt to starve out, would he not ? All of us eat ; spirit- 
ists and materialists, evolutionists and creationists, edu- 
cated and uneducated — all eat, and without w^aiting to 
understand all about both sides of the business of body- 
making. All this is true, and all this I mean to say, Avith- 
out in the least disparaging education, or the deepest pos- 
sible scientific research. 

Now all I have said of nature, and body-building and 
sustenance, is just as true of the Bible, and of soul-building 
and sustenance. Here, too, we have simplicity on one side, 
the under side, our side ; and mystery on the other side, 
the upper side, God's side. All that men have to do or 
see to in the matter of their soul's salvation here and here- 
after, is all so simple that any responsible person can 
understand it. 

1. What mystery is there about faith ? Believing is 
one of the most natural and one of the most common 
things men ever do. We believe from childhood to the 
grave. We pull up out of the cradle, and on to man- 
hood, by fiiith. Nor is there anything mysterious about 
believing in Jesus Christ. He came to us in our nature, a 
babe, a boy, a man ; eating, drinking, sleeping ; hungry, 
thirsty, weary ; joyful and sorrowful ; making wino nt a 
marriage and weeping at the grave, having the experi- 
ences of life in common with us. He came as close to us 
as we can get to one another; came alongside of us, in 



76 Sweeney's sermons. 

all our sad and sorrowful experiences ; tasting sorrow and 
grief, suffering and death, as we do, and because we do. 
He died for uj?. God raised him up and exalted him to 
his own right hand in heaven, where he lives for us. 
AVhiit is more simple and more reasonable than that we 
should believe in him ? The wonder is that any poor 
sinner who ever heard of him should not believe in him, 
and love liim. 

2. What is more simple than repentance. Every one, 
anywhere between childhood and old age, knows what it 
is. There is no experience we know better. 

3. How simple and reasonable that we should openly 
confess Jesus Christ. We all understand confession. Chil- 
dren know what it is and even know something of its phi- 
losoj^hy. But we do not have to know its philosophy. 
It is our duty, our privilege, to confess him before men, 
and how it is that in confessing him we make all the con- 
fession God requires of us as sinners, we may not under- 
stand, but so it is ; and how simple it is. 

4. We can be baptized in his name. That, too, is a 
most simple thing. All who are capable of obedience at 
all can do that. We are not required to understand all 
about the reason or the philosophy of it, but simply to be 
baptized in his name and because he bids us do it. 

5. And then a life of faith, hope, love, obedience, 
prayer and trust in him is the simplest, easiest, happiest 
life one can live on earth ; ever learning of him, and leav- 
ing out of our lives what he forbids, and taking into them 
what he bids, as best we can, trusting him for all the rest 
— that's all. We may not understand just how God 
answers prayer. We do not have to. Nor do we have to 
understand how he works in us by his Spirit, in the use of 
the means he has appointed and furnished, to build us up 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 77 

and sustain us spiritually, any more than we have to 
understand how he makes our bodies to grow, and sustains 
them. We have only to learn and do our duty, as in 
nature, and he will do all the rest for us as he does in 
nature. There are many questions about which we give 
ourselves needless trouble ; such as how God answers 
prayer, how he works in us to make us grow, how he will 
raise the dead, how he will judge the world, how he will 
make us happy in heaven ? All. this is his side of the 
work, and it will be done in greater love and wisdom than 
we can conceive. 

And this is 'Hhe simplicity that is in Christ." But 
what has he who ^ ' beguiled Eve by his subtilty " been 
doing since the apostle expressed his '^ fear " as in our text ? 
Was Paul's ^^fear" groundless, or well grounded? Has 
not the enemy been trying to corrupt our minds from this 
simplicity in Christ ? Has he not been trying to pervert 
our minds from what is revealed, and send us off after 
what *^ God doth know V^ Has he not in a large measure 
suceeded in shutting men's eyes to a simple life of obedi- 
ence and trust, and opening them to the mysteries of the 
Godhead, and the mysteries of God's side of the work of 
our redemption ? Men have been led to suppose that it is 
all important that they should understand all about the 
trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead ; and that 
there is vastly more wisdom and religion in such a state- 
ment as that there is '^ God the Father, God the Son, and 
God the Holy Ghost ; yet not three Gods, but one God, 
for there is unity in trinity and trinity in unity," than in 
all the simple statements of Jesus and the apostles. Also 
that it is all important that they should know nil about the 
"foreknowledge," '^ secret counsel" and decrees of God ; 
as well as just how God and Christ and the Holy Spirit 



76 Sweeney's ser3ions. 

dwell in men and work in them. Many have gotten clean 
over on God's side of the business of saving souls, and are 
fighting above the clouds, or at least in the clouds. 
Preachers have taiven the lead and the people have fol- 
lowed them away from the simplicity of duty and trust 
into the mysteries and mazes of speculations about the 
Godhead and the divine methods. About all the difficul- 
ties with which men are tussling, as well as the objections 
men urge against Christianity, as excuses for not doing 
their duty, are brought over from the upper side, the God 
side, of the question ; and not from the side God presents 
to us, the side of human duty. 

Men have allowed the devil to practice a huge fraud 
upon them, to make them act inconsistently and foolishly, 
and to pass judgment of condemnation upon themselves ; 
as well as to open up such vast fields of theologv to be 
studied, that it takes people a whole lifetime to learn how 
to become Christians, and many never learn the lesson. 

Now, here is the inconsistency. Men do not deal with 
God in nature as they do with him in the Bible. They do 
not deal with their pockets and stomachs as they do with 
their souls. When asked to obey the gospel of Christ, 
they will at once fall back upon foreknowledge and divine 
decrees ; will tell you that God foreknew all things that 
do, or ever will, come to pass ; that the end was present 
with him from the beginning ; that he foreknew whether 
they will be saved or lost ; that if he foreknew that they 
will be saved nothing can hinder it ; if he foreknew that 
they will be lost, they will be lost ; that, in a word, they 
can do nothing to change what God foresaw from all eter- 
nity ; that he foresaw all things that come to pass, from 
all eternity, and that therefore tliere is nothing they can 
do in the matter ; they are afraid to attempt to do any- 



THE SIMPLICITY THAT IS IN CHRIST. 79 

thing, lest they might be found fighting against the divine 
decrees. But when it comes to questions about the body 
' — about the pocket and the stomach, the very same men 
act quite differently, and it is presumable that they reason 
differently, if they reason at all. They look after the 
wants of the stomach and of the body generally, notwith- 
standing the end was present with God from the begin- 
ning. They work, provide, and eat, notwithstanding God 
knew from all eternity whether they would starve or have 
plenty. There are men in this country — growing scarcer 
as the years go by — who preach foreknowledge and foreor- 
dination, and man's utter inability to do anything in the 
matter of his soul's salvation, parting their hair in the 
middle that they may stand plumb on this line : and after 
so preaching all day Sunday, will go home on Monday and 
go to work, and put all hands at it, to provide for the 
wants of the body ! Why this inconsistency ? Is it 
because men will not hear the enemy when their stomachs 
pinch them ? Or is it because they do not consider him 
orthodox on questions about the body ? Or, is it because 
he is willing to allow men to feed and pamper the body, 
provided only that they will neglect the soul? 

The problem of God's sovereignty and man's free 
agencjy is one that most likely we shall never be able to 
solve to the satisfaction of all. It is logically and theo- 
logically an impossibility, there being in the problem too 
much that is unknown and unknowable. In temporal 
matters almost all men are content to exercise their iroe 
a.ffency and refer the matter of sovereignty to Ood him- 
self. This is the b(^st we can do. But we should be con- 
sistent, nnd in spiritual as well ns in teni})oral matters us(^ 
our free apency, and refer the nuitter of sovereignty, and 
the harmony of the two, to God. This side is ours. 



80 Sweeney's sermons. 

That side is his. In doing thus we may return to **the 
simplicity that is in Christ," as preached by the inspired 
apostles and acted upon by the first disciples. And may 
God help us. 



SERMON n. 



THE THKEE SIDES OF CHKISTIANITY. 

** For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot- 
ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have eternal life." (John iii : 16.) 

CHRISTIANITY is three-sided, and the passage of 
scripture just read presents all three sides; one wholly 
divine, one partly divine and partly human, and one whol- 
ly human. Or, to use another figure, there are three 
chapters of Christianity — one treats of what God has done 
and does ; another, of what Jesus has done and does ; and 
the third, of what man himself does, in the matter of his 
salvation. Of course I do not mean to say that, in the 
scriptures, the subject is always presented as so divided, 
but that it is so divisible, and such a division of it will be 
helpful to us in studying it. 

We have, then, presented by the passage we begin with, 
(1) the love of God for the world ; (2) the mediation of 
Jesus Christ, and (3) the faith of the whosoever would 
have eternal life— that is, the agency of man. These have 
been called very properly three different causes of salva- 
tion—the love of God the prime cause ; the death of the 
Son the meritorious cause, the agency of the individual 
the instrumental cause. 

1. Then, let us look at the prime cause, the love of God. 
This is back of all other causes and instrumentalities. 
It is the moving cause. It moves all other causes and in- 
strumentalities. This, too, as I have already said, is whol- 
ly divine. It is something w^hich God alone did, and 
which only he could do. As a cause it existed and moved 
6 (81) 



82 Sweeney's sermons. 

before the incarnation and ^vork of the Son, before what 
we call the atonement — before everything in the whole 
matter of redemption. God did not and does not love the 
world because Jesus died for it. Rather, Jesus died for 
the world because God loved it. I suppose God loved the 
world as much before as after the death of Jesus; that is, 
with an infinite love. The atonement made by Jesus 
Christ, whatever else is in it, was not meant in any sense 
to aflfect the mind of God favorably towards the world. It 
was not meant to appease the divine ^vrath. It was not 
meant to reconcile God to men. Just along here the pre- 
vailing theology of the past blundered. It brought the 
notion down through the ages and centuries that the suffer- 
ings and death of Jesus were necessary to placate the wrath 
of the Father, which theretofore was burning with furnace 
heat against all men for the nature in which they were 
born into the world; that Jesus, the second person in the 
Godhead, died to reconcile the Father, the first person in 
the Godhead, to his creature man. This egregious error 

has no doubt made more skeptics among thinking people 
in the past than all the books of unbelievers. How could 
it be otherwise I No one, it seems to me, with educated 
mind and heart could welcome it. It makes division in 
the Godhead. It makes the divinity a wrangle; one part 
trying to save men, and the other crying out for their dam- 
nation. Away with all such theology! It came from Af- 
rica, and has caused only trouble and bitterness among the 
children of God for ages and centuries past. 

''God so loved the world" — the whole world — the whole 
race of men — ''that he gave his Son." God loved the 
world always, and ever with an infinite love. This is 
true, whatever else may be false. And whatever is incon- 
sistent with this great and fundamental truth is false. 



THE THREE SIDES OF CHRISTIANITY. 83 

One may be ready to ask, if this be true, that God 
loves all mankind with an infinite love, then why not Uni- 
versalism? — why not all be saved? Well, I have no doubt 
but if the salvation of sinners, and their present and eter- 
nal happiness depended simply and wholly upon God, that 
all would be saved ; all would be happy here, now and for- 
ever, for he willeth not the death of any. His will as re- 
spects his creatures can only be benevolent. But mau is 
not so made as to be saved in that w^ay; that is, simply by 
the benevolent desire of God. Were he so constituted, no 
doubt he would be good and happy now. Indeed, it is dif- 
ficult to see how he ever could have sinned and suffered as 
he has in this world, if the love of God is the only factor 
in his happiness. It is a fact, however, that man is not so 
made. It is the power of choice between good and evil 
that constitutes him man. Could not God have made 
him otherwise ? made him incapable of going wrong and 
bringing in so much suffering? I suppose not. He might 
have made some other creature so ; but that other creature 
would not have been man, but in respect to the difference, 
would have been more like a planet, or a comet, or a 
moon. 

2. But this brings us to another side of the matter ; that 
side which I have said is both human and divine; the me- 
diation of Jesus Christ, the atonement. What is the 
atonement? Well, that's a pretty hard question to answer 
to the satisfaction of almost anybody, to say nothing of sat- 
isfying everybody. But what I mean is, that Jesus died 
for sinners ; died that sinners might be saved ; died that 
whosoever believes in him might not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life ; died that God might be just and the justifior 
of him that believes in Jesus. About the truth of all this 
there can be no question among people who believe the 



84 Sweeney's sermons. 

Bible. Among such believers there can be no question 
about the fact or the necessity of the sufferings and death 
of Jesus in order to the salvation of sinners. But over 
different explanations of the fact there have been bitter con- 
troversies from the second century down to the closing de- 
cade of the nineteenth. Of course, one has not time in a 
single discourse to discuss the various and conflicting ex- 
planations of the atonement. But we may spend a mo- 
ment with them. 

One of the most popular, and most unpopular, explana- 
tions ; that is, most generally received by orthodox believ- 
ers, and most generally opposed by the heterodox and un- 
believers; makes sin a debt and the sinner a debtor, and 
the vicarious sufferings and death of Jesus the satisfaction 
or payment of the debt. This makes Jesus to have suf- 
fered for the saved all they would have justly suffered for 
their sins and Adam's sin had he not died for them ; that 
is, Jesus suffered in his short life and death the eternal 
torment that must have been suffered by those he saves, 
had he not paid the debt for them. Then, again, among 
those who hold this theory of the vicarious sufferings of 
Jesus, there are diflerent and conflicting opinions as to 
whom the payment was made ; that is, as to whose claims 
he settled by his sufferings. Some say that it was the 
devil, whose claims upon the sinner were satisfied ; that he 
had captured the world by the overthrow of man, and that 
the sinner was his by right of conquest ; and that Jesus 
suffered for him, *4n his room and stead," paid the debt 
hanging over him and took him in. This is a pretty hard 
theological pill to swallow. But some gulp it down, nev- 
ertheless; others get over it like Dr. Cheney, of Chicago, 
was said to get over the word regeneration in the ritual for 
the baptism of infants — coughed over it. Other advocates 



THE THREE SIDES OF CHRISTIANITY. 85 

of the debt theory tell us that God, the Son, paid the debt 
to God the Father. But this looks too much like an alter- 
cation in the Godhead; and is about as hard a pill for some 
to swallow as the devil theory. Still other advocates of the 
debt theory tell us that the payment was made to infinite 
justice. This, at a glance, looks less objectionable. But 
on a closer examination, it appears to some to be an eva- 
sion. Unless infinite justice can be clearly separated from 
God, it differs little if any from the theory that the pay- 
ment was to God the Father. It implies a difference, al- 
most a wrangle, in the Godhead. The trouble with the 
debt explanation of the atonement comes of carrying a 
scripture figure too far. Nearly all the parables and fig- 
ures of scripture have been in the same way abused. Of 
course there is a point of resemblance between a sinner and 
a debtor, and the atonement and surety, that justified the 
use of that figure by the Spirit, but not the abuse of it by 
the uninspired fathers. It is one of the easiest things im- 
aginable to make an unwarranted extension of a good 
figure, and thus to plunge into an abyss of error and con- 
fusion. 

Another explanation of the atonement makes the w^hole 
life of sacrifice and suffering, and death of Jesus, only an 
exhibition of God's love for men, intended to subdue the 
rebellion of their hearts and remove their needless fears, un- 
to which they were held in perpetual bondage. Of this 
rather unpopular and heterodox explanation, I have this 
to say. That what it affirms of the suffering and death of 
Jesus is certainly true, though it may possibly not afi[irm 
the whole truth in the case; and the explanation may thus 
be defective. I am much inclined to think it is. 

But what I wish to say, and to say witli emphasis, is, 
that it is safest to follow no explanation of the matter; but 



86 Sweeney'^ sermons. 

to stop with and rest in the simple scripture statements 
upon the subject. Unbelievers and doubters have waged 
their war chiefly upon the explanations uninspired men 
have made of the atonement, rather than upon the simple 
statements of the Scriptures, ^^o man has ever been able 
fully to explain the sufierings and death of Jesus; and, 
possibly, the mystery may remain unsolved for all time. 
Then let it be called a mystery. That the just should 
have to sufier and die tor the salvation of the unjust, is a 
mystery, turn it any way you will. It is better to allow 
that it is beyond human comprehension, than by attempted 
explanations to make it only more incomprehensible and 
objectionable. But is the doctrine to be rejected simply 
because it is a mystery? Is the fact that it is incompre- 
hensible sufficient proof that it is false? Are we to reject 
as false everything that is to us mysterious? This will 
hardly be affirmed by the most rationalistic among us. 
For there is a great deal in nature as well as in grace that 
is full of mystery. Whoever attempts to bring all the 
ways of God within the comprehension of the human mind 
will ultimately find his attempt futile. 

There are not only mysteries in nature wherever we 
look with our eyes open ; but mysteries very much like 
that of the just suflTering for the unjust, as taught in the 
Bible. All nature suffi^rs, bleeds and dies for man. Turn 
where we will, we see this. The very bosom of the earth 
has to be ripped up, and torn open, and scratched about 
all the season, that man may be blessed — that he may live. 
Without this chastisement she yields only thorns and this- 
tles, and noxious weeds. The seed, too, must be threshed 
and smashed, and put to death, before it will re-produce 
itself for man's life and comfort. And somebody must toil 
and sweat, and hunger and thirst, and be worn out — and 



THE THREE SIDES OF CHRISTIANITY. 87 

this is generally vicarious suffering — in producing the har- 
vest. And when, after all, the harvest of grain is gath- 
ered, it must be threshed and mashed, and bolted 
and baked, before it becomes a blessing for man. 
Then the tree and the vine must be pruned and bled that 
they may bear their fruit, and then the fruit must be 
mashed and squeezed to death that we may enjoy the juice 
or wine. Then, too, the beasts of the field, the fowls of 
the air, and the fish of the waters, are continually bleed- 
ing and dying that man may live. In fact all good comes 
to us through toil and labor and sufferings. All life comes 
out of death. Every being comes into existence through 
pain and suffering of other beings. The man, therefore, 
who goes through this world with his eyes and ears open, 
looking upon the writhings, and listening to the wails of 
nature for man, ought not to stumble and fall over the 
sufferings and death of Jesus for the salvation of sinners. 
Explain vicarious sufferings we may not even to our own 
satisfaction, but see it we must. 

Somehow, and this should be enough for us, somehow Je- 
sus died to save sinners. It is God's plan. Is not that 
enough? Suppose w^e say, that he could not be just and 
save the sinner in his sins, just as he can not be just and 
bless the sluggard in his indolence and laziness ; that he 
could not be just to the sinner himself; and that it was, in 
his wisdom, necessary that Jesus should live, and sufier, 
and die, to reach and reclaim him ; should not even this 
view — imperfect and heterodox, as many would call it — 
inspire our hearts with love and gratitude? The suffer- 
ings of Jesus, as they relaie to God, in the scheine of nnhMiip- 
tion, we may never understand; but, as they relate to us, 
we can see apd feel a power in them. AVe can uiuUu-- 
stand that tlie heart tliat finals something of the ]>o\ver oi' 



88 Sweeney's sermons 

the sufferings and agony of Gethsemane and Calvary will 
be made a better heart for this world. Have not those 
scenes touched and tendered millions of hearts and made 
them better ? Who will suffer willingly for the good of 
men, like those who believe the story of Gethsemane and 
the cross? As it relates to us, then we can see wisdom 
and power in the cross. As it relates to God and other 
beings in the universe, we may never fully comprehend it. 
The cross of Christ has turned thousands of hearts in 
streams of love toward sinners, that, before they felt the 
power of the love of Jesus, were like stones. But to con- 
clude this side of our subject : If we can be content and 
satisfied with the simple New Testament statements on this 
subject, we shall avoid a great deal of unnecessary and bit- 
ter internal controversy, and have less external opposi- 
tion. 

3. **That whosoever believeth in him." This introduces 
the human side of the subject. Notwithstanding the in- 
finite love of God manifested in the gift of his only begot- 
ten Son; and the sufferings and death of Jesus, in all 
their unfathomed depths of meaning, for us, there remains 
• something for each individual sinner to do to be saved and 
to have eternal life. The love of God for the sinner, 
though infinite, will not of itself save him from his sins. 
The death of Jesus, though in some way, possibly beyond 
human comprehension, a propitiation for the sins of the 
whole world, will not in itself, or as it relates to God, save 
a single sinner. Both together will not save one man. 
Men were not made to be saved in that way. God will 
not save a sinner in spite of himself, nor without his own 
willing co-operation. He will not, by divine violence, 
break down the dignity of his own image, even to save 
him. Each man must for himself accept the salvation 



THE THREE SIDES OF CHRISTIANITY. 89 

which the ^ove of God offers in Christ, or remain in his 
sins, notwithstanding the love of God and the death of 
Jesus. God says to all, *' Behold I stand at the door and 
knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door I will 
come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me." 
(Rev. iii : 20.) Each man has the key to the inner cham- 
ber of his own soul. Its precincts are sacred. Demons can 
not, and God will not, invade them without permission. 
God, who created all things, and moves all worlds and suns 
simply by his power as he wills, stops at the door of the 
human heart, and says, ^'Behold I stand at the door and 
knock." Man's part is to open the door. He is an ac- 
cepter. He purchases nothing. He can do nothing that 
is intrinsically meritorious. Still, acceptance and appro- 
priation are necessary on his part, just as necessary as in 
nature eating is. He is so constituted that he cannot be 
saved and made happy without his own consent. He lives 
in this world by his own consent, and not without it. The 
power of life and death is in an important sense, within 
his own power. The power of choice with which he is en- 
dowed is the ground of his happiness. Of course God 
could destroy him, or make something else of him if he 
were to determine to do so; but he could not save him and 
make him happy as man without his consent. Man com- 
pelled, in the absolute sense of the word, is man un- 
manned. Let it be understood, ^then, that all the sinner 
does in the matter of his salvation, here or hereafter, is re- 
ceptive and appropriative. He provides nothing, pays for 
nothing. He receives. But he must receive and appro- 
priate to himself the salvation tliat is in Clirist for jill, or 
be condemned, or rather remain condemned iorover. !Man 
is just so wonderfully and foarfully made. 

I do not understand *H)elieveth" in the text to uwiwi 



90 Sweeney's sermons. 

simply a conviction of the mind or heart, however strong. 
It means more than any psychological condition ; it means 
a willing and hearty reception of Jesus, with the salvation 
that is in him — a reception of him in his way. Anything 
that may be called faith that in no way actualizes and ex- 
presses itself, but is content to remain in the mind or heart, 
is not the faith that receives Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ 
must be faithfulness to him. Faith that will not speak out 
and act out is dead — or is yet unborn. Such a faith never 
reached a blessing; never accomplished anything worth nam- 
ing. Faith that receives and appropriates salvation must be 
a real, actual, living faith, that lays hold of Christ and pulls 
up. No lazy, indolent, lifeless, cowardly faith will do. 
God never blessed a person since Adam sinned for a faith 
kept in the heart. It must come out. Beginning with Abel 
and coming down to the last believer mentioned in the Bi- 
ble, there is nothing to be found that countenances the 
doctrine of justification by faith only; and this is especially 
and conspicuously true when by ^^only" the advocates of 
the doctrine mean to exclude the obedience of faith — mean 
to exclude those very acts in which, under the gospel, faith 
actualizes and expresses itself. 

We have, in the New Testament, a conspicuous exam- 
ple of the kind of faith I am condemning. Here it is : 
* ^ Nevertheless even of the chief rulers many believed on 
him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess 
him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue : for 
they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.'' 
(John xii : 42.) Such a craven, cowardly faith is con- 
temptible, and is fitted only to add to one's misery here, 
to crush him in death, and intensify his sufferings in hell. 
We want a faith that will speak out and act out, even 
if it carries us over the devil's danger line. That is the 



THE THREE SIDES OF CHRISTIANITY. 91 

faith that receives and appropriates Christ. And in this 
sense every one's salvation depends upon himself — that is, 
every one must receive Christ Jesus for himself. In this 
sense every one must save himself, and in this sense only 
can he do so. Hence it was that on the day of Pentecost, 
when Peter had preached Jesus to the people, and they 
had heard and were pricked in the heart, and asked what 
they must do, and he had told them, that ^^with many 
other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, save 
yourselves from this untoward generation." They could 
only save themselves by receiving Jesus Christ by faith. 
How could they do this? The words following show how 
they did it: *^Then they that gladly received his word were 
baptized." (Actsii: 38-41.) That was what he had told 
them to do, *^for the remission of sins." That was what 
he was authorized to tell them. That was in accordance 
with the commission under which he was acting: *^ Preach 
the gospel to every creature; he that believes and is 
baptized shall be saved." (Mark xvi : 16.) Being 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ was an exercise of 
faith in him. It was the actualization of their faith. In 
that act of obedience to the authority of Jesus, their faith 
came out, and became a real, living faith, taking hold of 
him, putting hmi on; receiving him, and hence receiving 
the salvation that is in him. If their salvation did not 
thus depend upon their action, there would liave been no 
sense or propriety in Peter's exhortation. Indeed it would 
be difficult to find a place for exliortation, with sense and 
propriety, anywhere. But Peter did exhort liis instructed 
hearers to save themselves by obeying his instructions; and 
they did so save themselves. The exhortation and the 
manner of heeding it were both right and proper then; and 
it would, I think, puzzle any one to show why, under such 



92 Sweeney's sermons. 

circumstances, such teachiug and exhortation, and such 
obedience would not be right and proper now. Thus we 
see how persous save themselves. It is by faith. '' Who- 
soever belie veth in him" is thus illustrated and explained. 
And our salvation is to be carried to completion or perfec- 
tion by continued faithfulness to Jesus Christ, who is said 
to be the author of eternal salvation to them that obey 
him. 

But one is ready to say. That is salvation by works. 
Certainly not. Obedience of faith, or acts of faith ; that 
is, such acts as express or actualize faith, are never called 
works, or classified with works that are excluded from jus- 
tification. Indeed, nothing that is in any sense of the gos- 
pel is ever rightly classified with works in the Pauliiie sense 
of works. 

Thus we have seen the three sides of Christianity as sug- 
gested by the passage with which we started out* 1^ The 
love of God, the prime cause. 2. The work of Jesus, the 
meritorious cause. 3. The faith of the individual, the re- 
ceiving cause. In the first of these divisions belo}ig all those 
passages that predicate salvation of God; in the second, all 
those that predicate our salvation of Jesus and his work; and 
in the third, all those that predicate our salvation of faith or 
any of the acts of faith. And just here is where we see 
the necessity of the servant of God studying to show him- 
self approved of God, a workman that needeth not to be 
ashamed, rightly dividing (or handling) the word of tk^uth. 



SERMON m. 



THE CHURCH OF GOD — ITS FOUNDATION. 

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Csesarea Philippi, he 
asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son 
of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the 
Baptist: some, Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the 
prophets. He saith unto them. But whom say ye that I am? 
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto 
him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood 
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
heaven. And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou 
Shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged 
he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus 
the Christ."* (Matt, xvi: 13-20.) 

WHAT is called by our Lord his ^'church" in this pas- 
sage is not always so designated in the New Testament. 
It is variously called the '^church of God," the ^^kingdom of 
God," the '^kingdom of heaven," the ^* house of God," the 
'Hemple of God," ^^ God's husbandry," ^^ God's building," 
'* One body," the '' body of Christ," etc. These are all de- 
scriptive titles of the same thing, each one of some partic- 
ular phase or feature of it. All of them together pretty 
fully describe what we commonly call the '* church." 

That we may have a pretty comprehensive view of it let 
us notice briefly each one of its phase titles. 

The name ''church" is from a Greek word that means 
*' called out," primarily, and by consequence, ''called to- 
gether." It has in it no religious idea necessarily; but, on 
the contrary, it could be, and was, by the Greeks, applied 
to any body of people called together, irrespective of the 
purpose for which they were assembled. The rather up- 

(93) 



94 Sweeney's sermons. 

roarous assembly in Ephesus of which we have an account 

in the nineteenth chapter of Acts of xlpostles, ** called to- 
gether" by Demetrius to consider the interests of the craft 
of the silversmiths endangered by the preaching of Paul, is 
three times designated by the word from which we have 
church, but there translated "assembly" in verses 32, 39, 41. 
True, things took something of a religious turn in that 
** assembly," but not Christianly so, or after a godly sort. 
Again, Stei^hen, in Acts vii : 38, calls the children of Is- 
rael, who had been called out of Egypt, the ''church in the 
wilderness." The Greek word rendered church in the 
New Testament, as these instances sufficiently illustrate, 
meant simply an assembly or congregation of people ; a 
body of people called out and together. And that's all it 
meant. The character of any particular assembly of 
people, and the purpose of the assembly, must be learned 
from other descriptive titles, or circumstances, if learned 
at all 

''Church of God'' means an assembly of people ''called 
of God." "My church," in the mouth of our Lord, meant 
the people he was going to call out of the world. The 
"church of God," "church of the Lord," and what Jesus 
calls his church, all, of course, in the New Testament mean 
the same thing ; and is that bodv of people called of God, 
called of our Lord, "called," as says Paul, "by our 
gospel." 

The church of God is not a body of people, however, 
called together literally and physically, as was the assem- 
bly in Ephesus referred to, or as were the children of Is- 
rael in the wilderness called "the church in the wilder- 
ness." It is a spiritual body, and its members are called 
out or separated from the world in a spiritual sense, and 
associated together upon a spiritual basis, and by spiritual 



THE CHUKCH OF GOD. 95 

bonds. Those who believe in Christ Jesus, obey him, and 
t^ust in him, are, by such faith, obedience and hope sepa- 
rated spiritually from unbelievers and associated together. 
The call is a spiritual one, and the dissociation and associa- 
tion are spiritual. So that the church is a spiritual body. 
And the word translated church in the New Testament 
only describes this spiritually called out feature of the body 
of Christ. 

"Kingdom'' means authority, dominion, government. 
" Kingdom of God" means government of God. '^ King- 
dom of heaven" is only another form of expressing the 
same idea. And these designations of the body of Christ 
are meant to express the government feature of it. The 
people God calls in Christ Jesus are to be governed, but 
the government is to be divine and not human — '' not of 
this world," but of heaven. 

What our Lord in one verse of the passage under exam- 
ination calls his ''church," he in the next verse calls "the 
kingdom of heaven," by church expressing the called out 
feature, and by "kingdom of heaven" expressing the gov- 
ernment feature of the same thing. "The church of God" 
means the people called out and associated together of 
God; and "kmgdom of God" means the divine govern- 
ment of the same people. 

The phrase "house of God" describes another feature of 
the same thing: the family feature. The church of God is 
a family. God dwells in it. and is the Father of all. 
Jesus dwells in it, and is the elder brother. And all the 
members are brethren and sisters. 

"The temple of God" describes the uor,^Jup feature of 
the same thing. God dwells in his holy templ(\ and is 
worshiped there. It is a si)iritual temple. It is not one 
made with men's hands. It is not njade of stones. It is 



96 Sweeney's sermons. 

not one like that at Jerusalem, grand as that was. It is 
not like that at Ephesus, built of magnificent stones, all 
covered with dust and cobwebs, in which the bats hid by 
day and the crickets chirruped by night; but it is a spirit- 
ual temple, made of living stones— believing, hoping, 
trusting, loving hearts— in which he dwells by his spirit. 

There are several descriptive names by which the church 
is called that emphasize the work feature of it, such as 
'Vineyard," ^ ^building," and '^husbandry," or farm. The 
church is not meant simply for the saved to live in and be 
happy. It is meant for that, but for more than that. It 
is the place in which to work. None of us are called out 
to do nothing. Whom the Lord calls he puts to work, in 
his vineyard, upon his building, on his farm. They are all 
co-workers with God. They must be helpers with him in 
saving others, and thus work out their own salvation ; that 
is, carry out to its completion their salvation already be- 
gun. 

What is so frequently called the church is also called the 
''body," "the body of Christ," "one body." And this 
name brings to the forefront the idea of fellowship. The 
body is not a physical or material, but a spiritual one. It 
is a "man," "one new man," but it is a spiritual man. 
We understand something of the intimacy of the relation 
of all the members of the body of a man. There are many 
members, but one body, one man. Every member of a 
living body lives in virtue of its union with the body. 
Union is the organic law of all life, mineral, vegetable, an- 
imal, intellectual and spiritual. It is often said truly that 
"in union there is strength;" that "united we stand, di- 
vided we fall;" and it may be just as truly said, "in union 
there is life," and that " united we live, divided we die." 
We can see how true this is of the member^ of the humaa 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. 97 

body. It is just as true of a spiritual body — the body of 
Christ — and for the same reason — in virtue of the same 
law. "There is one body, and one spirit" in that body. 
* ' For as the body is one, and has many members, and all 
the members of that one body, being many, are one body; 
so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized 
into one body; and have all been made to drink into one 
spirit." So intimate is the relation of the members of the 
body of Christ one to another, that the pain of one is the 
pain of all ; the pleasure of one is the pleasure of all ; the 
honor of one is the honor of all, and the life of one is the 
life of all. There is "one body," "one spirit,' "one 
Lord," "one faith," "one baptism," and "one God and 
Father of aU." 

To understand, therefore, the various descriptive names 
applied in the New Testament to what we generally call 
the church, is to have a pretty comprehensive view of that 
divine institution. 

In the second place, we learn from the scripture in 
hand that, at the time our Lord used this language, his 
church was not yet founded in the world. This follows 
manifestly from the expression, "Upon this rock I will 
build my church." "TF??? build" is in the future tense, 
put simply beyond question by "will" the sign of the fu- 
ture. When any one says I will do this or that thing, he 
means by will to put the accomplishment of the thing after 
the expression in point of time. This is so manifestly true 
that one feels like he was saying what is hardly worth 
while when stating it. 

But we are sometimes told by those who coiitoiid for 

what they call the identity of the church under tlie OKI 

and New Testament dispensations thnt the Snvior meant 

by "will build" no more than that he would confiuKC to 

7 



98 swi:enf.y\s sekmons. 

build up that which already existed iu an incomplete 
state, as one might build higher or larger a house already 
in existence. But it is perfectly clear to any one not 
blinded by a theory, that our Lord was not speaking 
of building in any such sense. Notice he said not simply, 
'' I will build my church," but ''upon thin rock I will build 
my church." He was speaking not of continuing a build- 
ing, but of fundamental building — of building upon the 
foundation. 

While the expression ^'I will build" is in the unlimited 
future, and fixes no time for its fulfillment ; while, for any- 
thing there is in that simple expression the founding of the 
church might be in the very near or very distant future; 
still there is a circumstance mentioned in the context that 
fixes the time in the not very remote future. That cir- 
cumstance is, that the Savior said to Peter; ^'And I will 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (mean- 
ing by "kingdom of heaven" the same thing as by *'my 
church," with the government feature in front) and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven." This clearly means that Peter was to have 
power at the door of his church, to bind and loose. It is 
diflicult to make it mean less. Some make it mean more. 
There is a noti -i entertained by some, grounded upon this 
promise, that Peter keeps gate to the kingdom of glory. 
This may or may not be true. But our Lord was not talk- 
ing of anything of the kind. He was talking of something 
Peter was to do "on earth." He was to bind and loose on 
earth. It is a fair inference, then, that the church was to 
be founded while Peter was yet living on earth. And this 
accords perfectly with our Lord's words in the last verse of 
our chapter; ** There be some standing here which shall 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. 99 

not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in 
his kingdom." Let us follow this matter up a little fur- 
ther. Six days later we have the transfiguration scene 
upon the mountain, as recorded in the next chapter. 
Peter, James and John were there with the Lord. Moses, 
the giver ot the law, and Elijah, the chief of the prophets, 
appeared and talked with him. on the most momentous 
event in the history of the world, soon to transpire in the 
city of Jerusalem. Moses and Elijah appeared, it would 
seem, chiefly to disajypear. They disappeared, leaving in 
sight of the three apostles '^ Jesus only." And God said; 
**This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: 
hear ye him." This meant the coming exaltation of Jesus. 
It meant the approach of his reign. It meant what Jesus 
meant when he said a few days before: ''I will build my 
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; " 
when he said, ''I will give unto thee the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven;" when he said, ''There be some 
standing here which shall not taste of death till they see 
the Son of man coming in his kirgdom." 

A short time after the transfiguration scene, as we learn 
in the eighteenth chapter, after that there had been some 
disscussion as to who should be greatest in the kingdom 
of heaven, ''Jesus called a little child unto him and set 
him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto 
you, except ye be converted and become as little children, 
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (M-M. 
xviii : 2, 3 ) This shows that still the church or kingdom 
is not founded; or, at any rate, that the discii)les were not 
in it. Peter had no keys yet. 

Let us follow on until after the crncifixion and n^snrrcH'- 
tion of our Lord; and in the first chapter of Acts we learn 



100 Sweeney's sermons. 

that when Jesus and the disciples ''had come together 
they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time re- 
store again the kingdom to Israel? [That was their idea 
of the coming kingdom — that it was to be a restoration of 
dominion to Israel.] And he said unto them, It is not for 
you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father 
hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power 
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." (Actsi: 
6-8.) Now this "power alter that the Holy Ghost is 
come upon you," is evidently just what our Lord meant by 
*'the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and here the time 
of the fulfillment of the promise is fixed by the expression 
** after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." Then, 
after the ascension of our Lord, when the day of Pentecost 
had come, the Holy Ghost did come upon them — "And 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to 
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance." (Acts ii: 4.) They were now "endued with 
power from on high." That day, "after that the Holy 
Spirit had come upon them," Peter preached Christ cru- 
cified, buried, risen, ascended and made Lord and Christ 
in heaven, for the first time it had ever been done. Many 
heard and "were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what 
shall we do? Then Peter said unto them. Repent and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost. . . . Then they that gladly received his 
word were baptized. And the same day there were added 
about three thousand souls." Acts ii : 37-4L) Here 
we find Peter speaking with power and authority from 
heaven. This is the meaning of the symbol of "the keys of 
the kingdom of heaven ," and of binding and loosing on earth, 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. 101 

with authority and sanction of heaven. Here, too, the first 
church was constituted. That is the meaning of "and the 
same day there were added about three thousand souls" 
— not added ''unto them.^^ There is no "unto them" in 
the text. Those words were supplied by the translators to 
make the passage conform to their understanding of the 
matter. Three thousand souls "added" means simply 
three thousand souls associated together. This was the first 
church in the local sense, and the beginniog of the church 
in the general sense. This was the constitution of the first 
church : three thousand persons called out from the world 
by faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ, and associated 
together upon the rock. After this, obedient believers 
"were added to the church." So that here at Jerusalem, 
on the first Pentecost after the ascension, we find the 
church was founded and Peter received the keys; that is, 
power to bind and loose on earth. 

3. In the third place. What is meant by the rock? When 
our Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church,'' 
what did he mean by "this rock?" This is the funda- 
mental question of our passage. It has been answered, 
and is answered by Romanists, and some others agreeing 
with them, that our Lord meant Peter himself. And they 
attempt to sustain their view by arguing from the mean- 
ing of the w^ord translated rock and from tradition. They 
render the passage thus: "Thou art named Peter, that is, 
stone, and on that very rock I will build my church." Not 
only do Eomanists believe Peter was the rock on which the 
church was built, but they believe that every succeeding 
Pope of Pome has in his turn succeeded, in some way, in 
getting under the church and \)ec()ming its foundation 
stono, as Pet(M- was in tlie beginning. 

Another view, and the only other, is that by "this 



102 sweeney'8 sermons. 

rock" the Savior meant what Peter had just said. It will 
be remembered that the disciples had been out preaching 
among the people and had returned, that the Savior had 
asked them as to public opinion about him. They had 
answered. He had also asked them directly, ''Who say 
ye that I am?" Peter had answered, ''Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God." Then Jesus answered, 
"Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jonas; for flesh and blood 
hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is 
in heaven. And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I wdll build my church ; " that is to 
say, upon the truth he had uttered. Those holding this view^ 
understand the Lord's meaning to be about this: "Thou 
art Peter [a stoiie~\j and upon this rock [not simply a stone, 
but '^rock;" that is, this truth Peter had just expressed, 
which had not come to him by flesh and blood], I will 
build my church." So that is the issue. One party says 
our Lord, by "this rock," meant Peter himself; the other 
says he meant the divine and fundamental truth Peter had 
just expressed, when he said, ^^Thoii art the Christ, the Son 
of the living God.^' This much may be said without the 
alarming specter of philological criticism w'orrying us 
much, namely: There is just the difference between the 
meaning of Peter's name in Greek, and the meaning of 
the word rendered "rock" in the passage, that there is be- 
tween a "stone" and "rock," in the sense of the solid 
ledge, rock, or cliflT. And then they differ in gender, one 
being masculine and the other neuter. And that is differ- 
ence enough for much controversy. Mere verbal or phil- 
ological criticism is all very well in its place, and that is 
where we are shut up to it. But when we are not so shut 
up, too much can be made of it. We can lose time on it, 
and it sometimes causes us to lose sight of common sense, 
one of God's best gifts to man. 



THE CHURCH OF GOB. 103 

Let us try common sense on this mucli disputed ques- 
tion. To begin with, it will be granted by both parties to 
the controversy, that by "this rock" our Lord either 
meant Peter, or the truth Peter had just expressed, one or 
the other. Indeed, it is difficult, in the light of the pas- 
sage, to find anything else he could have meant. We can 
have an agreed case that far; that is, that either Peter 
himself, or the statement he had just made, "Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God," was meant by ^ 'this rock." 
Now, let us try common sense in seeking an answer to the 
question, which? 

Whatever the "rock" is, it is the foundation on which 
the church was to be built. That will not be disputed. 
And now, is it not a fair presumption that when the apos- 
tles go forth to found and build up the church, they will 
give some prominence to the foundation, whatever it may 
be? They will hardly ignore it entirely, and make con- 
spicuous other matters not at all fundamental or essential 
to the church, will they? We may reasonably presume 
not. Well, when they went forth to found the churcli, 
did they preach Peter wherever they went? Did they 
ever preach Peter to anybody, anywhere, that we know^ 
of? Did they ever require anybody to believe in Peter in 
order to come into the church? Did they require any one 
to confess Peter? Did they baptize in the name of Peter, 
or into Peter ? Certainly not. Are we right certain that 
one-half the persons l)rought into the church, founded 
upon the rock, in the times of the apostles, ever knew tliat 
there was sucli a ])ers()n as Peter? Wliat did tlie thou- 
sands of persons brought into the churcli by the ministry 
of Paul, for instance, evcM* know about Peter? In j)rc^a('h- 
ing to sinners, and bringing them to salvation and into 
the church, no prominence was given by the apostles to 



104 Sweeney's sermons. 

Peter over others. Is not all this very strange if Peter 
Avas the rock on which the church was built? Is it not, in 
fact, unaccountable? 

Now, let us try the other view, that by *' this rock " our 
Lord meant the truth Peter had just expressed; "Thou art 
the Christ, the Son of the living God." Did the apostles, 
in founding and building up the church, give any promi- 
nence to this truth? Did they preach this to anybody? 
Did they not preach it to everybody wherever they 
preached ? Is not this statement an embodiment of their 
preaching, so far as we have any record of it in Acts of 
Apostles? Did they not upon this truth make the issue 
between God and men ? Did they require any one to bcT 
lieve this? Was not this precisely what they did require 
all to believe? And was not this all they required persons 
to believe in order to come into the church? For what 
purpose were their testimonies written ? ' * These are writ- 
ten that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God." (John XX : 31.) 

Did the apostles require of believers any verbal confes- 
sion, and what was it? Was it not this same truth again, 
which was not revealed at the first by flesh and blood, but 
by the Father in heaven ? And in what name did they 
baptize believers? Was it not '' in the name of Jesus the 
Christ?" And were not believers "baptized into Jesus 
the Christ," the Son of the living God ? And did they not 
teach persons who thus "put on the Lord Jesus the Christ," 
to ^ ' walk in him ? " To ask these questions is to answer 
them, to every one even moderately well acquainted with 
the New Testament scriptures. And does not this look 
very much like the truth, that "Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of God," was made the foundation of the church? 

Let us notice a few passages from the writings of the 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. 105 

apostles bearing upon this question. First, we will hear 
Peter : ' ' To whom [Christ, the Lord] coming, a living 
stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, 
precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual 
house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, ac- 
ceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is 
contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief 
corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him 
shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which be- 
lieve he is precious : but unto them which be disobedient, 
the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made 
the head of the corner, a stone of stumbling and a rock of 
offence." (1 Pet. ii : 4-8.) In this passage the apostle 
teaches that Jesus, the Christ, is the living stone, the rock, 
unto whom coming, believers are built up a spiritual house, 
to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to 
God. This is the church of God, called a spiritual house, 
built on Christ, the Kock. Notice that believers are the 
lively stones of which it is composed. 

Paul says in his epistle to the Ephesians, who were be- 
fore their conversion, mostly Gentiles: ^^Now therefore 
ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citi- 
zens with the saints ; and of the household [or church] of 
God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, [because they laid it] Jesus, the Christ 
being the chief corner; in whom all the building fitly 
framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord : 
in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of 
God through the Spirit." (Eph. ii : 19-22.) How could 
persons believe in Peter, and come to him, and bo fitly 
framed together upon him as tlie foundation, who never 
knew anything of him, who never hoard ot'liim, that any- 
body knows of? As we have already said, no doubt hun- 



106 SWEENEY 8 8EKM0NS. 

tlreds and thousands of the Gentiles were brought into 
the church without ever having heard of Peter. No 
doubt hundreds and thousands of them lived and died in 
the church of God without knowing anything of that 
apostle. But, on the other hand, wherever the gospel 
was preached, no matter by whom, it was made known 
that *' Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." No- 
body came into the church without hearing and believing 
this. This, then, is the rock. This is the foundation, the 
creed, of the church of God. Hence the language of 
Paul in his epistle to the church that was in the city of 
Corinth: ''According to the grace of God which is given 
unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foun- 
dation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man 
take heed how he buildeth thereon; for other [sufficient] 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus the Christ." (1 Cor. iii. 10, 11.) This brief pas- 
sage teaches several things expressly, bearing upon our 
subject: It teaches that the foundation of the church ''is 
Jesus the Christ " — of course, as declared to be " the Son 
of God." It shows liow this "is the foundation of the 
apostles and prophets." They ''laid the foundation" — of 
course, by preaching "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
the living God." The passage also teaches that there is no 
" other" sufficient foundation — no other on which persons 
can safely build. 

4. Let us briefly consider the question. Why did our 
Lord call the statement of Peter — "thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God" — a "rock?" Of course, it 
was not a rock, literally. Neither Avas Peter a " stone. '* 
The one was called a rock and the other a stone by a fig- 
ure of speech. And a figure of speech of the kind this is, 
is simply the calling of one thing by the name of another in 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. 107 

some respects different one. Figures of speech are very 
common in the scriptures, as in almost all languages. 
We all use them, and generally to give force and empha- 
sis to our thoughts more readily and beyond what we are 
able to do by the literal use of words. The truth we are 
considering was called a ''rock" no doubt for the same 
reason that Peter was called a "stone." Rock is solid, 
lasting, unyielding, especially as a foundation on which to 
build. Our Lord had before this called him a wise man 
who builds his house upon a rock, and him foolish who 
builds on the sand. He means by the use of this figure, 
in our passage, to say with greater emphasis than he could 
in literal language, that the truth Peter had just expressed 
was the comprehensive and fundamental truth of Chris- 
tianity ; that it was the truth, revealed not by flesh and 
blood, but by the Father Himself, on which men might 
build all their interests for time and eternity; that it 
would stand all the shocks of time, and that the gates of 
hell should not prevail against it. 

Peter was called a '' stone," by our Savior, no doubt, to 
indicate his firmness as a man, as " flesh and blood ;" and, 
as compared with others of his fellowmen, as measured by 
men, he was a man of great firmness. Peter was a 
*' stone" among men, but he was not a "rock" large 
enough and solid enough to support the church of God. 
Peter was human — "flesh and blood" — as other nun are. 
And so have been all his alleged successors — some of them 
intensely so — down to the present all(\u(Ml incinubont. 
But the foundation of tlie church of Ood is not " iU^sli 
and blood " nor anytliing constructed or " revenlcd by iK sli 
and blood." It was not even reveahMl by Jc^siis lilmscH' in 
the flesh; but by the Fatlier who is in Iu^mvcmi." The i:u't 
is the church was not even built on Jesus (lu> dn-ist, tlie 



108 Sweeney's sermons. 

Son of God, while lie was in flesh and blood. The foun- 
dation of the church of God is divine and infallible. 
Peter, firm as he was as a man, failed signally after what 
our Lord said to him as recorded in our passage. And 
for the matter of that, faltered even after his conversion 
and inspiration. But ^* Jesus the Christ, the Son of God," 
fails not under any test. It is the foundation God has 
laid. It is His own comprehensive truth. It will stand 
until the last battle is fought between truth on the one hand, 
and all the allied powers of earth and hell on the other. 

In conclusion : What is the meaning of that phrase in 
our passage, which says, *^The gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it?" And, first *^ against" what 2 the Rock? 
or the church built on it? We need not stop here, how- 
ever, to exercise ourselves in grammar, or to display a bit of 
critical acumen. It is evident our Lord meant to teach 
that the gates of hell should not prevail against either the 
Rock or the church built on it, that for the reason the one 
should stand, the other should also. 

But what is the meaning of the *' gates of hell? " This 
phrase can be most easily and naturally understood in the 
literal sense of the words. ^^ Gates," then, are places of 
entrance, places of ingress and egress ; as, for example, 
we enter a walled city, or any inclosure, through the gates. 
When heaven is represented as a walled city, it is said 
that those **who do his commandments," may enter in 
through the gates into the city." And the word translated 
** hell " meant to those acquainted with the Greek language, 
**the realm of the dead," **the common receptacle of un- 
embodied spirits." And it is the judgment of the best 
Biblical critics that it should never be translated **hell," 
as that English word has a popular meaning altogether 
different. 



THE CHURCH OF GOD. - 109 

*' Gates of hell," then, meant simply *' entrance to the 
state of the dead." This is the most literal and natural 
sense, and, no doubt, the one in which our Lord used it. 
This accords with his use of the Avord Rock in the same 
connection, and brings prominently forward the most 
sublime view of the glory and worth of the church of God. 
From this point of view we may see it towering in match- 
less beauty and glory above all other confederations of 
men ; eclipsing in power and splendor all earthly kingdoms, 
empires, and republics, based upon the Eock of Divine 
truth, while they are founded in the sands of human wis- 
dom and philosophy, and supported only by the arm of 
flesh. None of the governments of this world have or 
claim any power beyond the gates that open into the realm 
of the dead. Loyalty to one's civil government is a com- 
mendable trait of character. What we call patriotism 
seems almost a natural thing ; and in the present condition 
of the world is a necessity. We should not disparage civil 
government. But, after all, what it is to us and for us it 
is only in and for this world — on this side the gates of death. 
It cannot follow us through. It does not propose to 
reclaim us from the prison of death. It does not even 
knock at the door when its subjects pass through. At 
the dark gate of death the proudest government on earth 
surrenders all claim to its subjects. It abandons them 
there forever, as they pass through. When her distin- 
guished men enter the realm of the dead she lowers her 
flng and drapes her public buildings, and, at least seems 
to mourn them a few days, and then bids them fan^well 
forever, and sets about filling their places, often with 
envy, bitterness, and strife, and sometimes in blood. 
Not so the government of our I^ord. It is ibnnded upon 
the Koek. It stretches its proud and mighty wings over 



110 Sweeney's sek.njons. 

all worlds. Its banner waves over the subjects of the 
King even in the valley of the shadow of death. He must 
reign till all enemies are subdued. He will destroy 
death itself. He says: "I am he that liveth and was 
dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, and 
have the keys of hell and of death." He says unto his sub- 
jects: ''Because I live ye shall live also.'' His subjects, 
standing on the Rock that towers high over the wrecks of 
time, can serve him in this blessed hope, singing as the 
days go by : 

"Some build their hopes on the ever drifting sand. 

Some on their fame, or their treasure, or their land; 
Mine on the Rock that forever shall stand, 
Jesus, the Rock of Ages.'' 



SEEMON IV. 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 

" Give diligence to present thyself approved unto 
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, 
handling aright the word of truth."— (2 Tim. ii : 
15.) 

WHEN the apostles in their epistles, as Luke in Acts, 
speak of '^ihe word of the Lord," ''the word of 
God," "the word of truth," '' the word," they generally, if 
not always, mean the gospel. When the Old Testament word 
of God is meant they call it ''the Scripture," "Script- 
ures," "Holy Scriptures." In the passage I have quoted 
" the word of truth," no doubt, means the gospel — or "the 
word of truth " which came by Jesus Christ. 

We believe in the Old Testament and the New ; that it 
is all the word of God. But " diligence " is still necessary, 
upon the part of the preacher, in handling, or dividing, 
this word. This shall be the subject of our discourse. 

1. And, first, as to the Old Testament and the New. Are 
they of equal importance and authority with us, who live 
in the Christian dispensation? Certainly not. Let us 
see: " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners 
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath 
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb. i : 
1, 2.) God spake to the Jews by the prophets — and, no 
doubt, Moses was meant to be included among " the pro- 
phets." By " his son '' and the apostles he now speaks to 
us — both Jews and Gentiles. "Therefore we ought to 
give the more earnest heed to the things which wo have 
heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if 

(111) 



112 Sweeney's sermons. 

the word spoken by angels was steadfast and every trans- 
gression and disobedience received a just recompense of 
reward ; how shall we escape if we neglect so great salva- 
tion ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." 
(Heb. ii: 1-3.) "The word spoken by angels" means 
the law. That the angels co-operated with Moses, in some 
way, in receiving and giving the law is not merely a rab- 
binical tradition, but is taught in the Old Testament and 
the New. For example, Stephen, the martyr in his mem- 
orable speech for which he died, speaking to the Jews, 
said: *^ Ye who received the law as it was ordained by 
angels, and kept it not." (Acts vii : 53.) Just how the 
angels co-operated in giving the law we may not know, 
but it is none the less a fact ; nor is it any the less a fact 
that the law was given by Moses ; " for," we read, ** the 
law was given by Moses ; but grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ." 

It is important for us to understand also that the law 
was given to the Jews. It was meant only for them. It 
was never made obligatory upon the Gentiles, in fact, it 
was that which separated the Jews and Gentiles ; and was as 
a middle wall of partition between them. Hence Paul 
says of our Savior : ' ^ He is our peace who hath made 
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of par- 
tition having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances, to make in him- 
self of twain one new man, so making peace." (Eph. ii: 
14, 15.) Nor are we to understand the apostle by '*law" 
as meaning simply the ** ceremonial law," as is sometimes 
assumed by those who would be at least partly under the 
law. Such an assumption is in the teeth of Paul's uniform 
style. He never says *'the law" without including the 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 113 

whole law. He who draws a line between what men call 
the moral and the ceremonial parts of the law, to make it 
appear that only the latter was done away in Christ, not 
only makes an unauthorized survey, but an egregious 
blunder as well. Let us hear the apostle in another place : 
** Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament ; 
not of the letter, [that is, the law of Moses,] but of the 
spirit; [that is, the gospel of Christ,] for the letter [law,] 
killeth, but the spirit [the gospel] giveth life. But if the 
ministration of death [the law] written and graven on 
stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not 
steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his 
countenance, which [the law] was to be done away ; how 
shall not the ministration of the spirit [the gospel] be 
rather glorious. For if the ministration of condemnation 
[the law] be glory, much more doth the ministration of 
righteousness [the gospel] exceed in glory. For even that 
which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by 
reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is 
done away [the law, written and graven in stone] was glo- 
rious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.'' 
(2 Cor. iii: 6-11.) 

It cannot be denied, certainly with both intelligence and 
candor, that the apostle here teaches that the law, the 
whole law, was done away in Christ. He so particularizes 
as that he cannot possibly be interpreted as speaking only 
of what was ceremonial in the law — **the law written and. 
graven in stones," as only the decalogue was. That 
whole ministration then, together with its piirjioso, 
was only parenthetical and intended, when it was given, only 
to serve until Christ should come to his throne. And this is 
saying no more than Paul in another })lace says as ]^lainly as 
anything can be said. Hear him : *^ Wherefore then serveth 
8 



114 SWEENEY S SERMONS. 

the law ? It was added [to the promise God made Abra- 
ham concerning Christ] because of transgressions till the 
seed should come to whom the promise was made. * * * 
But before faith [the gospel] came we [Jews] were kept 
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should after- 
wards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster 
to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 
But after that faith is come we are no longer under a 
schoolmaster." (Gal. iii: 19-25.) 

According to this teaching, when Christ, the promised 
seed, came to his authority, the law that was added to the 
promise, expired by limitation, having served its time and 
purpose. 

Principles, truths, absolute right, will never perish — can 
never be abolished — and all that there was of these in the law 
of Moses, we have in the gospel. But the old code is gone. 
We "are not under the law, but under grace." We are 
under no obligation to do anything simply because it was 
in the law of Moses. And yet, whatever there was in the 
law, right in itself, morally right, right before it was put 
into the law; w^hatever was in the law because it was 
right, and not made right by being put there ; is, of course 
obligatory upon Christians; but not because it was con- 
tained in the law of Moses. We are under Christ. 

While, then, the Old Testament is true, and profitable 
to us, as containing the history of creation and 
of God^s dealings with men in former times; because 
it contains many promises and prophecies, some of 
them fulfilled, and others being fulfilled, in Christ; because 
it is full of types and shadows of which Christ is 
the antitype and the substance ; because it affords many 
illustrious examples of victorious faith in God, and of 
heroic virtue among the ancients; because it is a great 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 115 

store-house of devotional matter; still it is no longer 
authoritative, as the New Testament is. 

Jesus the Christ has * ^ all authority in heaven and on 
earth," at least so far as humanity is concerned. This he 
claimed himself when he had fought the last great battle, 
in the valley of the shadow of death, anticipating his 
ascension and coronation in heaven. This was the mean- 
ing of the transfiguration scene upon the mountain; of 
Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, 
appearing and disappearing, leaving none save Jesus only ; 
and of the voice from heaven saying. *' This is my beloved 
Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." ** Jesus 
only" is the ^*one Lord." We should, therefore give no 
heed to men who preach the law of Moses as in any sense 
essential to salvation. We will hear Paul again, and 
somewhat at length on this point : 

** As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk 
ye in him ; rooted and built up in him, and stablished in 
the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with 
thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through 
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; 
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God-head bodily. 
And ye are complete in him, who is the head of all princi- 
pality and power. In whom ye are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ ; buried 
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised 
him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and 
the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened 
together with him, having forgiven you all tres])as8e8, 
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against 



116 SWEENEY^S SERMONS. 

US, [Jews] which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross ; having spoiled principalities 
and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing 
over them in himself. Let no man therefore judge you 
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the 
new moon, or of the sabbath, which are a shadow of things 
to come; but the body is of Christ." (Col. ii : 6-17.) 

Evidently there was some effort being made to bring the 
disciples at Colosse under the law ; to induce them to be 
* ^ circumcised " and submit to ''the handwriting of ordi- 
nances" — the ''law written in stones," and to observe the 
legal regulations about "meats" and "drinks," and 
"holy days," and "new moons" and "sabbath days." 
But the apostle teaches them that they had need of none 
of these things ; that they had been ' ' circumcised with 
the circumcision of Christ" — that is, they had that of 
which circumcision under the law was a type ; that Christ 
had "blotted out the handwriting, of ordinances," "nail- 
ing it to his cross ; " and that as to "meats" and " drinks,'' 
and " holy days," and " new moons," and the " sabbath,'' 
they were all only shadows of things that were to come 
after, and had served their time and purpose in the legal 
and typical dispensation ; that they had Christ himself, 
and with him the substantial blessings typified by all those 
times and observances. 

It may be remarked appropriately just here, that the 
effort to fasten the sabbath of the law upon Christians is 
directly in the teeth of these plain words of the apostle. 
The legal sabbath is in no sense obligatory upon Christians. 
It went with the law. It passed away with the shadows at 
the rising of the Sun. We have now rest in Christ. We 
shall have perfect rest after awhile. 

The Lord's day is a different day with an entirely differ- 



THE WORD OE TRUTH. 117 

ent signification. It commemorates the resurrection. 
Those Christians who will be under the law of Moses, at 
least the decalogue, have had no little trouble hunting for 
authority for changing the sabbath from the seventh to the 
first day of the week, upon the demand of the Sabbatari- 
ans. Error always brings trouble with it, or in its wake. 
They are akin. 

Now, all I have said was intended to prepare the way for 
this statement. While, as already said, the Old Testa- 
ment is true, is full of divine wisdom, and profitable for 
all Christians, yet we are not under it; but under the 
New Testament, which contains all things necessay to sal- 
vation, and is the Christian's only authoritative book. No 
doubt hundreds and thousands of Gentiles became Chris- 
tians in the first century, and lived and died in the church 
of God, without ever having heard of the Old Testament. 
And so it might be now. 

HOW TO HANDLE ARIGHT, OR RIGHTLY DIVIDE, THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

And, first, let us notice that division, or portion, of it 
commonly called the gospels ; that is, the books of Matthew, 
Mark, Luke and John. In these records we have the min- 
istry of John the Baptist and the personal ministry of 
our Lord himself. 

John the Baptist was a prophet of God and his mission 
was to the Jews only, and was fulfilled while the law of 
Moses was still in force. He was therefore a prophet 
under the Mosaic dispensation. His preaching is summa- 
rized by Matthew in this brief sentence: *' Repent ye; fi)r 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand." He baptized the pen- 
itent Jews who came to him ^* confessing their sins," 
requiring them to believe on him who was to come, who, 
said he, **is mightier than I.'' He came to prepare the 



118 Sweeney's sermons. 

way of the Lord thus by preparing a people to receive 
him. He baptized our Lord himself, upon his demand, 
and seeing the Spirit descend and abide upon him recog- 
nized him as the Messiah, and proclaimed him ** the Lamb 
of God that taketh away the sin of the world." He then 
said, '' he must increase but I must decrease," thus grace- 
fully accepting a state of things that few great men accept 
without murmur or complaint. The praise of this grand 
man and prophet of God is set down in our Lord's own 
words: ** For I say unto you, among those that are born 
of women there is not a greater prophet than John the 
Baptist ; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is 
greater than he." 

Our Lord's personal ministry was also restricted to the 
Jews; and, like John's, was fulfilled under the law of 
Moses. They lived in the evening of the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion ; but in their preaching we can easily see the gray 
dawn of the new and better day. It was the time of twi- 
light. 

It was evidently not the intention of the Lord to teach 
the people generally, as to the nature of his coming king- 
dom, during his personal ministry. He instructed his dis- 
ciples, it will be remembered, when he sent them out to 
preach during his earth -life, to preach just what John the 
Baptist had preached: ''Eepent, for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand." It was manifestly his purpose to do 
just what he did — to call about him certain persons, to 
instruct them in the nature of his kingdom as far as it was 
possible on their part, and to qualify them to *Heach all 
nations" when the time should come. To the multitude 
he spake of his coming kingdom only in parables. From 
the multitude he often retired with his disciples, that he 
might better instruct them in the things which the time 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 119 

and conditions had not come for preaching to all the peo- 
ple. Even the sermon on the mount was intended to be 
heard by his disciples only, as the Lord withdrew from the 
multitude before beginning it. These disciples he was 
preparing to be his apostles to the world— his witnesses 
and ambassadors. He was instructing them, that, as the 
Father had sent him so he might send them. He said 
many things to them for which the public was not ready 
yet. Hence he said to them: ^^What ye hear in the 
ear, that preach ye upon the housetops." (Matt, x : 27. 
Upon one occasion, it will be remembered, his disciples 
asked him : *'Why speakest thou unto them in par- 
ables ? He answered and said unto them, because it 
is given unto you to know the mysteries (things thereto- 
fore unrevealed) of the kingdom of heaven, but to them 
it is not given." (Matt, xiii : 10, 11.) It was impossible 
yet for him to instruct the masses even of the Jews, as to 
the nature and scope of his kingdom ; and he chose to 
avoid saying anything that would give his enemies any 
advantage of him before the unlearned, or precipitate the 
issue with the Jews that was to come in its time. He did not 
even allow his disciples to preach that he was ^ ' the Christ 
the Son of the living God," until after his resurrection from 
the dead. (Matt, xvi: 20, and xvii : 9.) And he had 
said so little about this before the multitudes in literal lan- 
guage, that nothing, as to his claim to be the Christ the 
Son of God, or as to the nature of the kingdom he pro- 
posed to establish, could be proven on his trial, except by 
himself. He ** was born of the seed of David according 
to the flesh," and 'Svas declared to be the Son of God 
with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the 
resurrection from the dead." Before his resurrection, there- 
fore, his Messiahship and divine Sonship were not 



120 Sweeney's sermons. 

preached. Before his resurrection his enemies could not 
and would not have understood him, had he spoken of his 
own nature fully, and that of his kingdom. In fact his 
disciples, even, to whom it was given to understand these 
things, failed materially to understand him on these ques- 
tions before the resurrection. Jesus never lost anything 
by haste. He had a preparatory work to do, and could do 
that, awaiting his " time," his '' hour," of exaltation and 
glory. 

The chosen apostles of Jesus, to whom the proclamation 
of the gospel to all nations, and the establishment of the 
church of God, were committed, after the resurrection, 
were the extraordinary men of the new dispensation. 
They received an extraordinary education under the great 
Master himself. They received, after the resurrection 
and ascension, an endowment of extraordinary power, by 
the Holy Spirit. Their work thereafter was largely an 
extraordinary work. These men were dissociated from 
the world and all its cares and concerns, and associated 
with Jesus, during his personal ministry, in an extraor- 
dinary sense. They must abandon the world's business 
entirely — let the dead bury their dead, even — and follow 
the Master. They were to be his witnesses to the world. 
They were to ^*take no thought" for the things of this 
world. They were to be provided for in an extraordinary 
manner. They were to receive the Holy Spirit, who was 
to bring to their minds what they had heard the Master 
say, who was to show them things to come after the 
Master left them, and who was to guide them into all 
the truth, in the extraordinary work assigned them just 
before the ascension of the Lord. Now, he will be certain 
not to '* handle the word of truth aright," who does not 
understand that to these extraordinary persons many things 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 121 

were said that are not applicable to ordinary men and 
women ; that promises of special providence and special 
divine guidance were made to them that are not in the 
same sense to be applied to ordinary men. For want of 
observing this fact many a preacher has had unnecessarilv 
to tug and tussle with such passages as, ** Take no thought 
what ye shall eat, or drink, or wherewithal ye shall be 
clothed," *'Take no thought what ye shall speak," ''Let 
the dead bury their dead," "He shall guide you into all 
the truth," etc. etc. The preacher will always have 
difficulties who tries to make a general application of 
these special instructions and promises. 

JESUS TO THE APOSTLES, THE APOSTLES TO THE WORLD. 

Jesus himself said about the same, just before his 
asceusion. Hear him: "Peace be unto you. As the 
Father has sent me, even so send I you." (John xx. 21.) 
He sent them, educated and qualified, endowed with 
power from on high, to preach to the nations what he had 
taught them, and more, what the Spirit should afterward re- 
veal to them. To know what to do to be saved, and what to 
do as a saved person, one need go no further than to the 
apostles of our Lord. We can learn a great deal from the 
recorded discourses of our Savior, and from the recorded 
instructions he gave his apostles ; but we are not com- 
pelled to go further than the apostles to learn all things 
necessary to our salvation. We do not have to interpret 
his parables. There is no such necessity upon us. Nor 
do we have to interpret, "Born again," "Born of water 
and of the Spirit," "The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
whence it cometh or whither it goetli," etc. etc. All he 
meant by all his ])arablos, and by all the figures he niado 
use of, we have in Acts ol' A])ostles and tlieir K])istles to 



122 Sweeney's sermons. 

the churches, in unparabolic, or literal language. Abso- 
lutely all! Besides, there has been a good deal of error 
brought into the church " and into the world, by persons 
going beyond the ample, literal teaching of the inspired 
apostles, to the uninterpreted figures, parables and prophe- 
cies of our Lord. It may be set down as certain, that 
whenever the curious preacher gets any doctrine or 
authority for any practice, or ground for any hope, out of 
any parable spoken and not interpreted by our Lord, or 
out of any figurative language used by him, which can not 
be found in the literal teachings of the apostles, he gets 
too much, and hence something erroneous, and, of course, 
more or less mischievous. 

The gospels also record some of the miracles our Lord 
did. While many of them were publicly performed ; that 
is, in the presence of multidudes of people ; they w^ere all, 
or generally, performed **m the presence of his disciples,'* 
In this respect, too, his apostles were to be **his witnesses 
to the uttermost parts of the earth." They were to bear 
witness to what they had seen him do, as well as to what 
they had heard him say. 

While his miracles, with possibly one or two exceptions, 
had obviously a beneficent character, they w^ere designed 
primarily to prove that he was the Christ, the Son of God. 
The apostle John summarizes the matter in a few words, 
thus: ''Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence 
of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but 
these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have 
life through his name." (John xx. 30, 3L) 

In accordance wdth what we have seen of the character 
of the gospels they all record the fact that our Lord, after 
his resurrection did commission his apostles to go and 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 123 

make disciples of all the nations, committing to them the 
way and the means of salvation for every creature. They 
were to begin at Jerusalem. They were to tarry in that 
city to be clothed with power from on high. They were not 
only to ' ' make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit," but, after discipling persons, they were to 
teach *nhem to observe all things whatsoever" the Lord 
had taught them. 

And now we have already anticipated that portion of 
the New Testament called, 

ACTS OF APOSTLES. 

This book while it does not purport to be anything like 
a complete record of all that the apostles did under the 
commission to disciple the nations is yet sufficiently full to 
show what they preached and what they required sinners 
to do to be saved, as well as how they constituted churches. 
It is not a record of, and should not be called, the Acts of 
the Apostles, as if it contained all the acts of all the 
apostles, or even all the acts of any of the apostles. It is 
simply **Acts of Apostles ;" that is, some acts of some 
apostles. The writer as a matter of fact, confines himself 
mainly to some acts of Peter and Paul, the latter being 
called and constituted an apostle after the ascension, and 
whose mission was more especially to the Gentiles. This 
is, then, the portion of the New Testament in which we 
learn especially how the apostles made disciples; in other 
words, what they required Jews and Gentiles to believe 
and do to become Christians and members of the church of 
God. The apostles were directed into all the truth by the 
Spirit and acted in Christ's stead in propagating Chris- 

l^^l y- rpfjj. APOSTOLIC EPISTLES 

were addressed to Christians and evidently intended 



124 Sweeney's sermons. 

mainly to instruct them in the duties, privileges and hopes 
of the Christian life. In these Epistles we may learn how 
the apostles carried out the second chapter of their 
commission — ''teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you." Besides these practical 
lessons there are in the Epistles many references and 
allusions to other mattei-s from which we may learn many 
good and profitable lessons. But the fundamental design 
of the Epistles was mainly to furnish and equip the 
disciples for the Christian life. Information therefore of 
this practical character can be found in this portion of 
scripture suited to every Christian's condition in almost all 
conceivable circumstances. As we should consult '*Acts 
of Apostles" to learn how Christians are made, so we 
should consult the letters of apostles, to learn the duties of 
Christians already made. And when we find that which is 
doctrinal and not simply practical, and allusions to things 
pertaining to the conversion and primary salvation of the 
saints, in these epistles, we should not forget the fact, in 
our interpretations, that Christians and not aliens are 
addressed by the apostles. 

THE APOCALYPSE. 

This book in respect of its contents as well as its date, 
too, most likely, very appropriately closes the Xew Testa- 
ment canon. It is the only strictly prophetic book of the 
Xew Testament. Its prophecy too is of a peculiar 
character. It expresses itself almost wholly in symbolic 
visions ; and it is not every man and woman that can read 
and talk who can be confidently relied on as a safe 
interpreter of its symbolism and visions. Of all the books 
of the New Testament it is perhaps most explained and 
least understood by the critics and commentators. Cranks 
have far less trouble in understanding and explaining it 



THE WORD OF TRUTH. 125 

than scholars do. It may be safely said, however, that 
many of its prophecies have been fulfilled and many 
remain to be fulfilled yet in the future. Its visions 
evidently reach forward to the end of the reign of Christ 
and of the present state of things. The name of this 
book means revelation, discovery, disclosure ; and this 
is its peculiar feature. It reveals a glorious future for the 
church after the time of battle and of trial. It has escaped 
the notice of few observing people that the minds and hearts 
of old believers turn with especial fondness to the dis- 
closures of this book. It is studied more by the old than 
by the young. The worn and weary soldier of the cross, 
who feels that his battle is fought, that his work on earth 
is about finished, finds more in it for his comfort while 
lingering upon the brink of the river than he did while 
actively engaged in the battle of life. Its bold and varied 
symbols have for him now that he is about to lay off* his 
armor forever, a peculiar significance. By its light he 
sees the city, the home, the rest, the bliss for which his 
weary soul sighs within him — the city that has everlasting 
foundations, the sinless, painless, tearless, sorrowless, 
deathless, and now no longer ^ ^ far away " home of the 
soul — and he says : ** Let me go ; my soul is weary. " 



SERMON V. 



OUR AIM. 

THE aim of that religious people known willingly as 
''disciples of Christ" or '' Christians " is the subject 
of this discourse. 

If their distinctive aim is not a good and worthy one, 
then there is no sufficient reason for their existence as a 
religious people. That they have such existence in con- 
siderable numbers and influence, especially in the United 
States, is a fact; but, unless by such separate existence 
they aim to accomplish some good work not as likely to be 
done without them, they are likely only to be the cause of 
a useless and an inexcusable disturbance in the religious 
world. Every person, every association of persons — in 
fact, every thing — should have some good reason assign- 
able for its existence. There are already quite enough 
churches, quite enough denominations, amons: the professed 
followers of Christ ; and there can be no valid reason 
given for an attempt to create and maintain another; 
simply another denomination of Christians. It is believed 
by many that denomiuationalism is the greatest internal foe, 
and some would even say the bane, of Christianity to-day. 
The disciples generally hold this view of it. To build up 
another denomination of Christians and add it to the long 
list already in existence, therefore is not the aim of the 
disciples. And if they ever do so it will be in spite of a 
much worthier aim with which they started out. On the 
(126) 



OUR AIM. 127 

otlierhand, candor requires the acknowledgment, that their 
fundamental purpose is in its very nature hostile to all 
denominations, as such ; not, of course, to Christians 
among the denominations, but to denominationalism itself. 
To build up and maintain a mere denomination, however 
superior to those already in existence it might be, is not 
within the scope of their purpose. 

To aid us in getting at what is the exact and distinctive 
aim of the Disciples it is important that we should have 
before us the state of things existing in what we call the 
religious world, in view of which their work was begun. 
And to aid us in getting a correct view of the situation 
Ave will suppose a case. It shall be one fairly supposable ; 
one that might occur. We will take a young man twenty 
years old, and call him Jones, and locate him in Chicago. 
He is well educated for one of his age. He is not a church 
member, and has never even made a profession of religion ; 
but has in common with us all a religious nature, and 
believes, in a general way, as most young men in Christian 
countries do, in the Christian religion. He is more than 
ordinarily an independent thinker ; takes a pride in think- 
ing for himself on all questions in which he feels an inter- 
est. He determines in his own mind to become a Christian 
and a member of the church of God. He means to act 
intelligently in the matter or not at all. He is not going 
in this way or that, or to join this church or that, because 
somebody else did ; but is going to investigate and under- 
stand the matter for himself — how to become a Christian 
and a member of the church of God, the true cluirch 
founded by Jesus and the apostles. He is going to take 
nothing second-hand, but is going to the bottom of the 
whole matter that he may understand it for himself. 
With this purpose he begins his investigations. And at 



128 Sweeney's sermons. 

the outset he meets a Roman Catholic priest, ready to en- 
lighten him. The priest tells him, of course, that his 
church is the true church of God, the one founded by 
Jesus and the apostles, the only true church and infallible; 
that in his church he may be a Christian ; out of it he will 
be a common sinner or at best a heretic. The priest 
preaches the church and presses its claims till he convinces 
young Jones that it is at least respectable : respectable for 
its antiquity, for its large membership, for its wealth and 
for its learning ; claims that it is the very identical church 
which Jesus and the apostles founded on the Rock, of 
which Peter was the first Pope. After patiently hearing 
the speech young Jones decides that in pursuance of his 
purpose he must at least make himself acquainted with 
the church of Rome and pass judgment upon her claims. 
But before beginning the iuvestigation he chances to meet 
a representative of the Eastern or Greek church, who 
claims that his is the true, the orthodox, the infallible, 
the only church of God : that in it, one can be a Christian ; 
out of it, only a sinner or a heretic. After hearing his 
speech young Jones decides that he must also study and 
pass upon the claims of the Greek church. This enlarges 
the field of investigation considerably. And while the 
young man is indulging some reflections upon the field of 
study opeoed by these two churches with their antiquities, 
their doctrines, traditions, customs, ceremonies and infal- 
libilities, he is approached by an Anglican of the city, 
anxious to enlighten him as to the English church. He 
too is a clergyman, a rector of one of the parishes of the 
city. He tells young Jones about his church. It is not 
Roman Catholic, or Greek Catholic, but English Catholic. 
He preaches against popery, but for apostolic succession : 
has a good deal to say about the church, the ministry, th^ 



OUR AIM. 129 

fathers, the councils of the church, its prayer-book, its 
orthodox creed, its fasts and feasts, days, moons and 
seasons, pompous rites and ceremonies, its prayers and 
praises, suited to all climes and seasons — not exactly the 
work of the apostles themselves, but much the same thing 
in English, that of their direct lineal successors — almost 
infallible, if not quite. He tells him of all the learned 
and distinguished persons who have been born and died 
in this church, and especially among the English speaking 
people of the world. Young Jones hears the Anglican 
patiently and concludes that he must also weigh his church 
and decide upon its claims. And while he is considering 
the question where to begin and in what order to proceed 
in his theological and ecclesiastical investigations he meets 
a Protestant clergyman of the city, who, having heard of 
the enquiring turn his mind had taken recently, had come 
to enlighten him upon the great subject in which he was 
interested. He finds young Jones in some mental worry 
and confusion about true Christianity and the church 
of God: and undertakes at once to relieve him of his 
burdens by preaching Protestantism to him. He tells 
him, to begin with, that all the Catholic churches so 
called, the Koman, the Greek and the English, are only 
human, and in many respects very human ; that their 
claims to infallibility are simply preposterous — three of 
them, at war among themselves, and yet each claiming to 
be infallible ! He preaches Protestantism ; tells him about 
the great reformation, about Martin Luther, Melancthon, 
Zwiugli, Calvin etc, etc., tells him that tlie Bible and the 
Bible alone is the religion of Protestants ; tells him of tlie 
great doctrine of justification by faitli only, of personal 
regeneration, experimental religion, of conscience etc, etc; 
and concludes that the way to be a (^hristian is to seek and 
9 



I30 swEENEVs 5i:R3ioys. 

obtain an experimental knowledge of regeneration and 
forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ ; and that the 
matter of church membership is of minor importance com- 
paratively. True, he continued, every Christian should 
join some church ; but as to what one was in his judgment 
largely a matter of individual taste. In fact, while he 
thought every Christian should unite with some evangelical 
church, he did not hold church membership to be in any 
sense essential to salvation. Every one should be aDowed 
to join the church of his own choice. He thought it well, 
if convenient, for young people to go into the church of 
their parents. Particularly he thought it looked well for 
husbands and wives to belong to the same church. He, 
of course, thought his own church the most scriptural of 
all in its £uth and practice; and he supposed every 
Christian thought about as he did about the particular 
church of his choice. 3Ir. Jones at this point interposes a 
question as to how many churches there are. The clergy- 
man did not know exactly as to that ; in feet he thought 
there was but one church of God, and all the so called Pro- 
testant churches are but so many branches of that one 
church, each one claiming to be m«Tst scriptural and evan- 
gelical in its doctrines and practices, and that this was a 
question about which Christians differed, and, he held^ 
had a right to diSer. Some thought, and he strongly 
inclined to that opinion himself, that it was a wise provi- 
dential arranc^ment that there were so manv evansrelical 
denominatioDS, so that every one could find one suited to 
his own taste ; and he thought there should be no angry 
discussions of the matter, but the fullest inter-denomi- 
national fellowship and communion of all evangelical 
Christians. 

As vouno: Jones had set out to understand for himself 



OUR AEVI. 131 

the way to become a Christian and a member of the 
church of God, the views of his Protestant friend added 
somewhat to his confusion. They were entirely too in- 
definite for him. In fact there seemed to him something 
in them bordering on the haphazard, especially in re- 
ference to the matter of church membership. It seemed 
to him that one might miss the church of God entirely if 
it be a thing so wholly undefined and w^ith so many 
branches — so many evangelical branches. Of course evan- 
gelical was meant to distinguish certain branches from 
others unevangelical. And, again, allowiog that there 
were so maay evangelical branches and that one could 
certainly distinguish these from the unevangelical, there 
comes up the difficulty of deciding as to which of the 
evangelical branches is the most evangelical, the most 
scriptural in its teaching and practice. He seemed to be 
getting into greater difficulties and deeper confusion for 
every lesson he took. So he concludes to retire and review 
the whole matter. He does so and finds himself in about 
this predicament : Here are three churches, the Roman, 
the Greek, and the English, each claiming to be Catholic, 
each claiming to be the church of God, each claiming to 
be the only true church, each claiming more or less stoutly 
to be infallible ; and each one opening up before him a 
field of investigation that would require years of study. 
Then here is Protestantism with its innumerable evan- 
gelical denominations, and denominations unevangelical, 
each having its creetl and customs, and each claiming to be 
most scriptural in its faith and practice. Now must he go 
all over this vast field, must he investigate all these 
churches and denominations, and decide upon all questions 
of difference between them* before he can become a Chris- 
tian and a member of the church of God? And is he 



132 Sweeney's sermons. 

certain tliat, should he live long enough to explore this 
vast field, he will in the end find a place where his soul 
can rest in certainty and peace ? He is completely dazed — 
not exactly that, for that implies light : he is overwhelmed 
in confusion ; and begins seriously to study the spiritual 
meaning of the word Babylon, as he had never done 
before. 

Many an honest soul with earnest desire to understand 
what Christianity is, what and where the church of God 
is, has been lost in that confusion in which for a time we 
must leave young Jones. Some alas! have never come 
out. Others in their disappointment and despair have 
fiillen into unbelief and denounced all religion as a fraud 
and a failure. 

But that we may still further and more fully get the 
situation before us; that is, the state of things in the 
religious world in view of which the movement iu which 
the Disciples are engaged was begun ; we will resort to 
another supposition. We will suppose a convention of all 
Christians — a pan-Christian convention, in Chicago. All 
churches, and all branches of all churches, fallible and 
infallible, evangelical and unevangelical ; all are repre- 
sented in this convention. This is a supposable case, 
although it must be granted that such a thing is not 
likely to occur any time in the very near future. It is 
simply our supposition. That's all. We will suppose the 
representatives from all Christendom convene and an or- 
ganization is eflTected without difficulty — another unlikely 
thing I But it's our supposition. And if something 
marvelous should follow such a convention, it need not be 
a cause of great surprise. So we will suppose, and escape 
the imputation of irreverence, we hope, that the Apostle 
Paul appears in the meeting. He succeeds in satisfying 



OUR AIM. 133 

all present that he is the Apostle Paul returned from the 
dead. He informs the brethren of the convention that 
God has sent him back to the world to serve him here 
awhile again ; that he instructed him to come back and 
take his position in the church to which he belonged when 
here before, to preach the same gospel, to labor for the 
propagation and spread of the same Christianity for the 
spread of which he labored when here before. He* asks 
the brethren. Where is the Christianity he planted, and 
where the church to which he belonged? What would 
the convention do with him? Would it undertake to 
comply with his request? And should it undertake to do 
so, how far would it be likely to go without difference, dis- 
cussion and division? Would the representative of the 
Roman Catholic church say that Romanism was the Chris- 
tianity Paul preached and that he belonged to the Roman 
Catholic church ? And if he did so claim, what would the 
other delegates say? And if they were to agree to it, which 
they certainly would not, what would Paul himself say? 
Would he not say — would he not be compelled by truth to 
say that he never in all his life heard of the Roman Catti- 
olic church, or of Roman Catholicism ? Paul a Roman 
Catholic ! Just think of it ! Was there any such thing as 
Roman Catholicism in Paul's time? We have the history 
of his time. The New Testament itself contains a history 
of Paul and his time. Is there anything in that about the 
Roman Catholic church ? It seems almost like ridicule to 
ask the question. To speak of Roman Catholicism or of 
the Roman Catholic church in Paul's time is a palpable 
anachronism. And what is true of the Roman Catholic 
church in this respect is equally true of every church and 
denomination represented in our supposed pan-ecclesiastical 
convention. Paul in all his lifetime never hoard of onc^ of 



134 sweexky's sermons. 

them. The hi<torv of his time is as silent as the grave 
about tliem all. Did Paul ever hear of the Greek church ? 
Did he ever hear of the English church? Did he ever hear 
of any of the Protestant churches? To ask these questions is 
to answer them in the negative, as every one acquainted 
with the scriptures knows. No intelligent and candid 
person will claim that any one of these churches existed 
when Paul was here. It can be claimed and it is true that 
each one of them holds and teaches some things taught by 
the apostle. This ^nll not be questioned. But the fact 
that each one of them can maintain such a claim only com- 
plicates the matter more and more. It is claimed that each 
one with its creed and customs has been evolved from 
what the apostles taught. But this cannot be true, tor 
they do not agree one with another. They clash and are 
at war with each other. But what we wish to emphasize 
is the fact that no one of them, as a church with its creed 
and customs, existed in the time of the apostles. This 
must be admitted by all of them. Some of these churches 
are very old. This will be granted. But as churches 
they have all been born since Paul lived and died. Hence 
our supposed convention cannot answer the question for 
the apostle as to the church he belonged to when in the 
world. There is absolutely no hope that any such con- 
vention could ever settle that question. 

We are brought then to this conclusion : that the Chris- 
tianity preached by the apostles, and the church they 
founded in the world and of which they were members, 
are older than all the creeds and churches and denomina- 
tions of the present day. Christianity and the church of 
God are older than all the creeds and denominations now 
in existence. 

Now the question arises, Do we desire to find that prim- 



OUR AIM. 135 

itive Christianity and church? Are they better .than the 
denominationalism we have? We answer, yes. Yes, a 
thousand times over. In this conviction we are settled. 

Well, can the New Testament Christianity and the New 
Testament church be eliminated from the creeds and 
churches of to-day ? We think not. Every effort to do 
so will be a failure. In fact, every Protestant creed and 
church are but the result of an effort to do that very thing 
— to get back to Jesus and the apostles — to get back to 
primitive and New Testament Christianity. And every 
such effort has only increased and complicated the diffi- 
culties of the situation, by adding one more creed and one 
more denomination to the number theretofore in existence. 
Here are the mazes in which young Jones was lost. 

Christianity and the church of God were before all the 
creeds and denominations of to-day. The Christianity and 
the church of the New Testament were established by the 
apostles. They were in the church and were Christians 
without knowing anything about the denominations and 
parties of our time. They were not Roman Catholics. 
They were not Greek Catholics. They were not English 
Catholics. They were not evangelical Protestants. They 
were Christians. They belonged to the churcli of God; 
not to a brauch of it but to the church itself, the body of 
Christ. Their Christianity and the church to which they 
belonged were divine. 

Can we find ihnt primitive Christianity and church? 
We have (IcH'ided that we can, and that by the help of 
God we will direct all the p(M)ple of God and i\\c world to 
it. We believe that it is to be found in the New Testa- 
ment and only there. This is o-enerally conceded when 
the New Testament is said to ])c wu nll-suilic'uMit rule o\^ 
faith and ])ractice. Then we must n^urn to the X(^w 



136 Sweeney's sep^mons. 

Testament; not through the creeds and churches, but 
directly. We will never get back if we undertake to go 
through all the creeds and churches in the order in which 
they came into being. Xever in the world. The way to 
get back is to let go all creeds and parties, all humanisms, 
and go back. Let go just now, and right where we are, 
and return at once. That is the only way it can be done. 
Cut entirely loose, and at once, from all human creeds and 
parties, and return and take our stand with the apostles 
and first Christians. Can we do it? Certainly. The 
Xew Testament will afi^ord us all the necessary light and 
means. If not, then it is not an all-sufficient rule of faith 
and practice. But we believe that it is, and to return to 
its teachings for our faith and practice, to make it, and it 
only, authoritative in all things essential to salvation. 
This is our fundamental aim. 

We do not believe that we are the only people who de- 
sire primitive Christianity, while all others prefer denom- 
inationalism. Xor do we believe we are the only people 
aiming to return to the church of the Xew Testament. 
We are aiming to accomplish what is almost universally 
desired by Christians. The advantage we claim is in the 
method we propose. The efforts Protestan4:s have made 
heretofore have failed because their method was wrong. 
Every Protestant party has aimed to get back to Xew 
Testament Christianity by offering to Christians a better 
and more scriptural human creed than any that had been 
tried before ; and instead of getting back to the Xew Tes- 
tament the creed only made a new party or denomination. 
If we wish ever to get back to apostolic Christianity we 
have got to put an end to the whole business of creed 
making. Instead of making better creeds than former 
ones we must get rid of them all. They must all go. If 



OUR AIM. 137 

we would return to the New Testament, and if we would 
understand it when we go to it, we must not be trammeled 
by our human creeds. 

There are persons who can see no way of serving the 
Lord without a creed, a human creed. Such persons 
should have something put down to their credit for their 
education; but they are greatly in error. They think 
that every body of Christian people should write out its 
faith ; should formulate a creed and publish it to the 
world; that common honesty and fairness require this. 
We sometimes hear such persons reason, as they suppose, 
in this way: ** Nobody believes and is governed by the 
Bible itself, but by his understanding of it, whether writ- 
ten or unwritten ; then why not write out his understand- 
ing of the Bible that all may see and know what it is :" They 
often say to Disciples : '^We have a written creed and you 
have an unwritten one, and that's the difference between 
us, as to creeds." This is rather specious. Let us look at 
k. Let us suppose that we cannot believe and be governed by 
the New Testament, as we propose, but only by our ^* un- 
derstanding of it " as asserted ; and that we ought to write 
out our ** understanding" that everybody may know what 
it is. Well when we write out our ** understanding" of 
the New Testament, can we then believe and be governed 
by that, or by our understanding of it? Only by our 
*' understanding" of it, of course : and must we not write 
that out for the same reason that- we wrote out our first 
** understanding?" Then Ave will have written our ''un- 
derstanding" of our understanding of the New Testament! 
And so we must proceed perpetually, unless at some time 
we succeed in doing what the Holy Spirit through inspired 
men could not do, namely, in writing out something in 
which we can beliovo and bo <T:()vornod by without 



138 Sweeney's sermons. 

having to write out an ''understanding" of it! Can 
we hope to do what the Holy Spirit could not or did not 
do ? We think not. It is better not to begin the endless 
business of writing out interpretations or understandings 
of the New Testament. 

Do parties who have their written creeds succeed any 
better with them in stopping the mouths of false teachers, 
in getting rid of heretics, than we do without such creeds? 
That's a question we might do well to consider. The fact 
is, human creeds only increase the troubles they are made 
to prevent, or to rid the church of. And this because, 
as interpretations of what the Spirit of God has said, they 
interpret too much. They make more essentials to salva- 
tion and more conditions to Christian fellowship than the 
Holy Spirit has made. The difficulty generally with men 
as lords is that they lord too much. The fundamental 
difficulty with all human governments is that they aim to 
govern too much ; and hence in nothing govern very well. 
In religion we should not try to contract the wide margin 
God has left for individual freedom of thought and con- 
duct. 

But it is objected, again, that if we abandon all creeds, 
churches, and denominations and return at once, as we 
propose, to the New Testament we shall fail of " success- 
ion," ''apostolic succession:" That is, we will thereby 
fall out of the line of succession. With some people that 
would be a great matter. Many are depending upon 
apostolic succession for their salvation. But the fact is, 
that apostolic succession in the sense of an unbroken 
series of ordinations from the apostles down to their alleged 
successors of to-day — that is, a succession of official men all 
through the Christian dispensation — is simjDly an ecclesiasti- 
cal figment. The Roman Catholic church claims it stoutly. 



OUR AIM. 139 

So does the Greek church, but perhaps a little less stoutly. 
So does the English church. And so also the Syrian, the 
Coptic and the Armenian churches, the Protestant Episco- 
pal church in the United States, and various Protestant 
denominations. But so long as there can be nothing found 
about it in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, we care 
but little about it. Let it go along with all the other rubbish 
we must lose in returning to the New Testament. The 
succession we want is that of the truth and not of men. 
We want the truth the apostles had and preached. We 
can find that in the New Testament, and only there. 

Jf we believe just what the apostles believed, confess 
just what they confessed, and do just what they did — if, in 
other words, we believe what they required people to believe, 
confess what they required them to confess, and do what 
they required them to do, and are content to be what they 
required people to be — will not that reproduce apostolic 
Christianity? That is the succession we w^ant. All the 
claims to a succession of ordained men from the apostles 
down to the present are simply preposterous. 

There are many who admit the all-suflSciency of the New 
Testament as a rule of faith and practice, and that a return 
to it as the only authoritative creed is desirable ; but deny 
that we have succeeded or are likely to succeed in doing 
so. In other words, they admit that our aim is a good 
one, but claim that our effort to carry it out has been and 
is a failure. They deny that we are any more apostolic 
in our faith and practice than others who hold on to their 
human creeds, denominational organizations and names. 
They think they see and are able to show that we iwv tio 
nearer New Testament Cliristianity and the New Tc^sta- 
ment church than when we abandoned denominational ism. 
They think we are as mucli a sect as any of tlir sects our 



140 gWEEyEY's SERMOyS. 

fathers left and against which we have been inveighing 
these seventy years past. 

We are fallible. Mr. Campbell and his co-adjutors were 
all fallible men. This we admit. But we claim confi- 
dentlv that our aim is a good one, but admit that we may 
not have been entirely successful in our effort to carry it 
into effect We need the help of all such persons as can 
show us wherein we have failed. They can be of great 
assistance to us. And all such persons as believe our aim 
is good but our effort a failure ought to be willing to help 
us. Better that, than misrepresent and abuse us. 

But now let us take a brief look, and as impartial a one 
as we can, at what the Disciples have accomplished. There 
are in the United States alone, we will venture to say, not 
less than eight thousand churches or congregations of them, 
aggregating a membership of little if any less than seven 
hundred thousand. They have established several uni- 
versities, a good many colleges and a great many schools. 
They have published a great many books and tracts, and 
are sustaining quite a num]>er of newspapers; and are 
nearly all preachers : all advocating a return to the Xew 
Testament in all things essential to salvation or to fellow- 
ship and communion in Christ Jesus. And all this has 
been done without a human creed, without any denomi- 
national organization or centralization, and without any 
party name ; simply as disciples of Christ or Christians. 
There is no uninspired writing to-day that is in any sense 
authoritative among us. This aU well informed and 
candid persons will admit. Others have sometimes said 
that some of the writings of Mr. Campbell are authorita- 
tive over us. It is suflScient to say simply that this is not 
true. 

Our congregations are getting on quite as peacefully and 



OUR AIM. 141 

prosperously, too, as any of the denominations do with their 
creeds. We find quite a sufiiciency in the New Testament 
to believe, as well as for our government. We are learning, 
too, to have opinions without forcing them upon others ; 
and to allow others to entertain opinions to which we can- 
not subscribe. We are learning that there are many 
things even in religion that none of us are able to explain 
to the satisfaction of all others. We believe that God will 
hold us responsible only for what he has plainly revealed to 
us ; and as in other matters he leaves us free, we ought to be 
willing to leave each other free. We should not want to 
bind each other where God has left us all free. Naturally 
men are tyrants ; the more ignorant, the greater. We 
are learning to allow others to be free as ourselves where 
God has not bound us. Nor do we have to receive and 
countenance every false teacher that comes along simply 
because we have no human creed. We can let go such 
when it becomes necessary w^ith as great facility as the 
parties who have creeds, made and adopted for that very 
purpose. 

The Disciples, then, have demonstrated the feasibility of 
Christians getting on together without any creed but tlie 
New Testament, which fifty years ago Protestants almost 
universally proclaimed an impossibility. We have suc- 
ceeded in getting back of all the creeds, and in this respect, 
are standing just where the Christians did when the apos- 
tles were here. Not only so : we have lived to see human 
creeds, once held to be so necessary, all certainly and rap- 
idly going into decadence ; falling into desuetude. It is 
only a question of time with them. The knell of their 
doom has been sounded. 

And now, coming to the New TestanuMit as the only 
authority iu matters of Christian i'aitli and j)racti(v, we 



142 Sweeney's sermons. 

have to be careful. There must be no deviation from our 
method either to the right hand or the left. 

What must a sinner believe in order to salvation and 
membership in the church of God? Our answer must be 
just what we can put our finger upon in so many words in 
the New Testament. All that the apostles required we 
must require, and no more. And we must accept their 
own statements of the subject matter of belief, and not 
substitute our explanations of them. Our explanations 
will not make them plainer. And then, again, the ex- 
planation business once begun will prove interminable. 
For instance, when the apostle, speaking of the written 
testimonies of his gospel, says: "These are written that 
ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God." (John XX. 31.) We must be satisfied with that 
simple statement; and require persons to *' believe that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God.'' No light needs to be thrown 
upon this simple apostolic statement other than that de- 
rived from other statements of the subject matter of belief 
to be found in the New Testament. If we require sinners 
to believe just what the apostles did, no more nor less, we 
will succeed in carrying out our aim in this respect; will 
we not? 

As to the verbal confession we require of those who would 
come into the church, we must be able to put our finger 
upon that also in the words of the New Testament. There 
will be great temptations to make slight departures. It 
^nll be so easy, so orthodox, and so compromising, to add 
a little to **the good confession" of the New Testament! 
But we must stand firm. 

And so as to what sinners are to do, we must stand upon 
the words of the commission and of the apostles in their 
preaching under the commission. What the apostles re- 



OUR AIM. 143 

quired persons to do to be saved, that and all that, and 
only that, we must require. We have in Acts of Apostles 
their instructions to sinners in all conceivable conditions : 
to such as had not heard tae word of the Lord and be- 
lieved; (Acts xvi. 31.) to such as had heard the word 
and had belieyed; (Acts ii. 38.) and to such as were pen- 
itent, praying, believers; (Acts xxii. 16.) and we must 
closely track these instructions, in telling sinners what to 
do. 

And in respect of what must be believed, what must be 
confessed, and what must be done, by the sinner in order to 
salvation, it may be claimed, fearless of contradiction sus- 
tained, that the disciples have returned to and do stand 
upon apostolic precept and precedent. If any one thinks 
not it is a matter easily tested. We are willing to be tried. 
Let him who thinks he can, show that, in respect of the 
belief, the confession and the obedience required of sinners 
by the apostles, we require more or less than they did. A 
fair and an honest trial will convince intelligent doubt- 
ers. It is true that in the creeds and customs of the 
churches and denominations there is so much, along here, 
wholly unknown to the New Testament and with which 
the people educated in such creeds and customs have be- 
come familiarized, it is difficult to draw the line between 
truth and error and make them see it readily. AVith 
many, custom is as potent as plain scripture teaching. 

In the formation of churches, in our public observances 
and devotions, and in all that we call church government 
and discipline, we have to be equally careful to make 
nothing essential to fellowship or anywise authoritative, 
but apostolic precept and precedent. This we are aiming 
to do. And if in anything we are yet wrong, a strict 
adherence to our rule will assuredlv bring us right. Only 



144 Sweeney's sermons. 

let us be sure not to go into the business of legislating and 
making rules of government. We shall have some dif- 
ferences and discussions; and there is nothing alarming 
about that. We are not all dead people. Creeds do not 
put an end to discussions among those who adopt them. 
If differences and discussions are evil, human creeds are not 
a cure for them. Our differences and discussions do not 
grow out of the fact that we have no human creed ; but 
out of the fact that we are mortal men and women, and 
fallible like other folks. Is it not a fact that no association 
of men and women has ever existed for any length of time 
in this world without differences and discussions? And are 
we sure that dead calms are always and everywhere desir- 
able? The winds put a rough surface upon the waters, 
stir up their depths, uproot trees, tumble down houses, and 
often destroy life; but they do more good than harm 
nevertheless. While they make themselves often very 
disagreeable it is however better to have them blow oc- 
casionally. And spiritual stagnation is not always the 
best thing to have. Why, the very thought even of a spir- 
itual state of things in this world that allows of no liberty 
of opinion, no differences and discussions is perfectly suffo- 
cating ! But th's can be said of the Disciples : That in all 
those matters made essential to salvation and membership 
in the church of God by the apostles no people are char- 
acterized by more perfect accord and harmony — that is, 
no living, free people. 

Of course, in carrying out our purpose, quite a revolu- 
tion will be wrought in all our nomenclature. We shall 
have to call New Testament things by New^ Testament 
names; and this will throw us out of accord with the 
churches and denominations. In speaking of the body of 
Christ in general, and of the churches in different locali- 



OUR AIM. 145 

ties, and of the disciples or Christians as such, we must 
apply only New Testament names. 

It is just at this point that we meet the fiercest and 
most determined opposition from the denominations. It is 
almost an impossibility for many among them to under- 
stand us, it would seem, and when they do, the more 
bigoted among them most stubbornly resist us. They in- 
sist that we ought to take upon ourselves some party 
name — some unscriptural name — as they have done; so 
that in speaking of us they can do so without applying to 
us New Testament names. If we would only meet in con- 
vention, or in some other formal way, adopt a name not 
once applied to the disciples by the apostles — no matter 
though we did it under guise of a convenience for the 
census bureau — we would at once be generally recognized 
as an ** orthodox denomination of Christians." As it is, 
however, we are called '^Campbellites," **New Lights," 
** Reformers," — anything but a New Testament name. 
We are accused of arrogance, in appropriating to ourselves 
the names that all Christians in all churches are equally 
entitled to — as if we were the only ** Christians" or '* dis- 
ciples of Christ" in the world! But however arrogant we 
may seem in the eyes of such as do not understand us as 
well as we understand ourselves, we must stand firmly on 
our line here. Surrendering here we surrender our prin- 
ciple, and surrendering our principle we surrender all. 
There is no arrogance in our position. It only seems so 
to such as do not see what a huge wrong and departure 
denominationalism is. Do not those who refuse to call us 
*' Christians" themselves profess to be '^ Christians?" Do 
they not profess to be ''disciples of Christ," at the same 
time they refuse to so designate us? They certainly 
do. Then where is our arrogance? Really, what parti- 
10 



146 Sweeney's sermons. 

sans have against us is not simply that we profess to be 
** Christians" or ** disciples of Christ," but that we will not 
profess to be something eUe ; that we will not profess to be 
partisans. They would be willing for us to profess to be 
''disciples of Christ" or ''Christians," and make no com- 
plaint about it, if we would only take a name meaning 
something outside of the Xew Testament, fur them to call 
us by. But we cannot do it. The New Testament be- 
lieved and obeyed makes Christians and not partisans, and 
when all professed followers of Jesus return to the faith 
and practice of that book, partyism and denominationalism 
will disappear. Then where will be our arrogance? 

Finally, we are told that our position unchristianizes all 
others but ourselves; that is, in accepting only Xew Tes- 
tament names for ourselves and for our congregations, and 
in calling the body of Christ at large only by Xew Testa- 
ment designations we dechristianize all who wear party 
names. We, however, fail to see the matter so. We 
dechristianize nobody. Does our professing to be Chris- 
tian unchristian anyone else? Surely not. Well, does 
our refusing to be or be called, anything else, unchristian ize 
others? Certainly not. How, then, do we dechristian all 
but ourselves? Does our wearing the Christian name 
logicallv imply that nobody else is a Christian? It cer- 
tainly does not. As a matter of fact the Disciples have 
ever held from the beginning of their effort to return to 
primitive Christianity, and do hold, that every Christian 
whether identified with any of the denominations or not, 
not only has the right to be, but ought to be, simply a 
Christian and to wear only Xew Testament names, as we 
ourselves are aiming to do. We claim no exclusive right 
to anything in the New Testament. We claim for all that 
it contains primitive, apostolic Christianity; that we all 



OUR AIM. 147 

can learn from it what the Lord would have us believe, 
and do, and be, and hope ; that it may be as easily under- 
stood as any of the human creeds ; and that if all Chris- 
tians, and all who would be Christians, will turn away 
from human standards to this divine one, they may get 
rid of all that is human and false and be united upon what 
is divine and true ; and that thus and only thus can all 
Christians be united in one body. 



SERMON VI. 



REGENERATION. 

REGENERATION is the subject. The word regener- 
ation is much used in our theological literature and has 
a current and popular meaning quite different from its 
meaning in the New Testament. The word occurs only 
twice in the New Testament, used once by our Lord him- 
self and once by Paul. This is true both of regeneration and 
the Greek word of which it is a translation. Its New Tes- 
tament sense is much more comprehensive than that in 
which it is now generally used. It may be well for us 
to notice briefly in this discourse the use of this word in 
the sacred writings before proceeding to a general discus- 
sion of the subject. 

It is used by our Savior (Matt, xix : 28,) as follows : 
** And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you that ye 
which have followed me, in the regeneration when the 
Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also 
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." In this passage '^ the regeneration" means about 
what we mean by the Christian dispensation, or the reign 
of Christ. The Lord meant to tell his disciples that when 
he should come to his power and glory in heaven they 
should receive power on earth. He entered upon his 
reign when he ascended to heaven, and they received 
power and authority when, a few days later, the Holy 
Spirit descended to earth. Then began the regeneration, 
the reign of Jesus, the restoration, the Christian dispensa- 
tion. It was to this regeneration Peter referred when he 
(148) 



REGENERATION. 149 

said, (Acts iii: 21.) ^*Whom the heaven must receive 
until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God 
spake by the mouth of his holy prophets which have been 
since the world began." And Paul, (1 Cor. xv: 24, 28.) 
**Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the king- 
dom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have abol- 
ished all rule and all authority and power For he must 
reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The 
last enemy that shall be abolished is death. And when 
all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the 
Son also himself be subjected unto him that did subject all 
things unto him, that God may be all in all." This 
**reign" ''until the restoration of all things" — till **all things 
have been subjected unto him" — is 'Hhe regeneration." 
Hence our Lord himself says, speaking of the same thing, 
(Rev. xxi: 5.) '' Behold, I make all things new." The 
reign of Christ is one of restoration, of subjecting, of renew- 
al, and is therefore appropriately and significantly called the 
regeneration. 

The only other occurrence of this word in the New Tes- 
tament is in Titus iii: 5, where Paul says, '*He saved us 
through the laver of regeneration and the renewing of the 
Holy Spirit." The word is, I think, here used in the 
same comprehensive sense as in the other passage just 
noticed; that is, in the sense of the Christian dispensation. 
The apostle means to call baptism the laver of the new 
dispensation. Under the former dispensation ihe laver 
was a vessel of brass containing water for the priests to 
wash their hands and feet before offering sacrifice, and 
stood in the court between the altar and the door of the 
Tabernacle. So baptism is the laver of the new dispensa- 
tion ; the laver of the regeneration. 

In this comprehensive sense of renewal — of the minds and 



150 Sweeney's sermons. 

hearts, lives and bodies of men, and of the earth and the 
heavens — regcDeration is now seldom used. The word is now 
generally used in a limited sense, of that spiritual change 
that takes place in the conversion of a sinner, a sense in which 
the word is not used in the New Testament. Let me be 
understood here. The fact of this spiritual change now 
almost universally called regeneration, and the necessity 
of it in order to salvation, were both clearly taught, by our 
Savior himself and by his apostles. But they taught this 
change by the use of other words rather than by the more 
comprehensive word regeneration. 

What is this sj)iritual change, and how is it effected? 
This duplex question opens up a vast field on which many 
theological battles have been fought since the time of 
the apostles. It may be well for us, before noticing the 
teaching of the Scriptures upon the subject, to take a look 
at the popular theories of the case. 

What we now <!all the calvinistic theory has been very 
prevalent since the beginning of the third century, when 
the doctrine of original sin was brought in by Origen and 
other church fathers. And that we may make no mistake 
in the statement of this theory of regeneration we will 
read it from one of the orthodox confessions of faith: 
*^ A confession of faith, put forth by the elders and breth- 
ren of many congregations of Christians (baptized upon 
profession of their faith,) in London and the country, 
adopted by the Baptist association of Philadelphia, Sep- 
tember 25, 1742, and by the Charleston in 1767. Printed 
by E. Temple at the Primitive Baptist office, 1850." pp. 
27 and 28. **Man b\ his fall into a state of sin, hath 
wholly lost all ability of will, to any spiritual good accom- 
panying salvation ; so as a natural man, being altogether 
averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able by his own 



REGENERATION. 151 

strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself there- 
unto." ** Those whom God hath predestinated unto life he is 
pleased in his appointed and accepted time effectually to 
call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and 
death, in which they are by nature, to grace and sal- 
vation by Jesus Christ." *' This effectual call is of God's free 
and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen 
in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, 
co-working with his special grace ; the creature being 
wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses 
until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he 
is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the 
grace offered and conveyed in it and that by no less power 
than that w^hich raised up Christ from the dead. Elect 
infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by 
Christ through the Spirit who worketh when, and where, 
and how he pleaseth ; so also are all other elect persons 
who are incapable of being outwardly called by the min- 
istry of the word. Others not elected, although they may 
be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some 
common operations of the Spirit ; yet not being effectually 
drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come 
to Christ; and therefore can not be saved." 

Such is the calvinistic theory of regeneration ; accord- 
ing to which the sinner in a state of nature can will noth- 
ing, can do nothing, but to resist all that is true and good, 
until he is regenerated ; and God regenerates him by his 
Spirit, without his co-operation, without his consent; in 
spite of him, in fact. He regenerates him just as he cre- 
ated Adam out of the ground, just as he raises a dead body 
out of the grave; the sinner being just as passive in tlu* 
matter as the dust was out of which Adam was made, or 
as the dead body in the grave. And when (u)d regener- 



152 Sweeney's sermons. 

ates him it is done so effectually that he can never be lost. 
He recreates him better and stronger than he created man 
in the first place. In short, God regenerates every sinner 
in spite of himself, and then saves him finally in spite of 
himself and everybody else, all to the praise of his glori- 
ous grace. And the non-elect he damns to hell forever in 
spite of himself, ** to the praise of his glorious justice." 
That's the Calvinistic theory of thecase. It is pretty hard, 
but it has one merit : It can be understood. It is just as 
simple and plain as falling off of a log. 

The Arminian confessions deny the doctrine of uncon- 
ditional election and reprobation ; but stultify themselves 
by teaching the doctrines of original sin, the total deprav- 
ity of the race, and the necessity of the immediate oper- 
ation of the Spirit in regeneration. Whoever teaches the 
doctrine of total depravity must, to be consistent, 
teach unconditional regeneration — or universal damna- 
tion. 

With both Calvin ists and Arminians infants are regen- 
erated. With some, all infants ; with others, aU baptized 
infants ; with others, elect infants ; and with stiU others, 
elect infants dying in infancy. What do they mean by 
regeneration ? It is very difficult to tell. Any how, it is 
something that is wrought in the soul of the regenerated, 
without any knowledge, without any faith, without any 
love, without any volition, without any conscience — with- 
out anything more than was in the dirt out of which Adam 
was made. Our Baptist friends sometimes accuse the 
Pedobaptists of teaching water-regeneration, because they 
teach and practice infant baptism, so called ; but there is 
between them only the difference of a few drops of water 
upon a few pounds of utterly depraved matter. They 
both teach infant regeneration, the Pedobaptists having 



REGENERATION. 153 

the advantage of a few drops of water in the process, as a 
means of grace. 

Both Baptists and Pedobaptists, sometimes berate the 
Disciples, whom they call Campbellites, for teaching water- 
regeneration, whereas if I understand the Disciples, and I 
think I do, they teach the necessity, in all cases, of faith 
in Jesus Christ in order to that spiritual change called 
regeneration; and, moreover, they are the only people 
that do so teach. The denominations hold the doctrine of 
original sin, of the utter depravity ot human nature ; and 
by so teaching they make what they call regeneration 
necessarily precedent to faith, or any thing else in the sin- 
ner. For if, as they all teach, the sinner is spiritually as 
dead as was the body of Lazarus in the grave, how can he 
hear, believe, repent, pray, or do any thing else until he 
is made alive, or regenerated ? Thus they make regener- 
ation not only precedent to faith but necessarily uncondi- 
tional and irresistible. How could the dead body of Laz- 
arus resist the power that quickened it? Or, how could 
the dust of which Adam's body was made resist the power 
of the Creator? The doctrine of infant regeneration, held 
by both Calvinists and Arminians, fixes this consequence 
upon them. For how can infants either ask or resist the 
power by which it is alleged that they are regenerated ? 
Their regeneration, if there be such a thing, is as uncondi- 
tional, and as irresistible, and about as physical as the res- 
urrection of a dead body from the grave. And regener- 
ation is regeneration. What is necessary to effect it in 
one case, that, and only that, is necessary in all cases. 

Now, as I have said, the Discii)les teach that iu all cases 
faith is necessary to that spiritual renewal called regener- 
ation. And they are the only people who do persistently 
and consistently so teach. They are accused of teaching 



154 

baptismal regeneration, whereas, with them baptism with- 
out faith in Christ is nothing. Baptism with them is 
what it is because it is an act and an expression of fidth 
in Jesus Christ. Neither have they any trouble about 
infants. They have rooted out that noxious African thistle 
— the doctrine that infants are guilty of Adam's transgres- 
sion. With them, infants are in no sense guilty of sin, 
and are in no need, as they are incapable, of that spiritual 
change necessary to a sinners conversion and salvation. 

We are now ready to read some of the passages of scrip- 
ture bearing upon our subject, that will furnish the answer 
to the question, what is that spiritual change called regen- 
eration, and how is it eSect^d ? 

* ' Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Clirist, who according to his great mercy begat us again 
unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus CTirist 
from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and 
undefiled and that fadeth not away." (1 Peter i : 3, 4.) 

*' Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, 
but of incorruptible, through the word of God which liveth 
and abideth." (Ibidi: 23-24.) 

*' Of his own will he ^Drought us forth by the word of 
truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his crea- 
tures," (James i: 18.) 

*'For though ye should have ten thousand tutors in 
Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; for in Christ Jesus 
I begat you through the gospeL" (1 Cor. iv : 15.) 

These scriptures relate to our subject; and properly 
understood afford the answer to our inquiry, what is regen- 
eration and how is it effected ? First It is the effect of 
the soul's apprehension and reception of Jesus Christ by 
faith. It is Jesus Christ in the soul of the believer. 
Believing is seeing the unseeru Faith looks not at the 



REGENERATION. 155 

things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen. 
Faith in Jesus Christ risen from the dead opens up in the 
soul of the believer the resurrection of the dead, the 
spiritual and immortal life, heaven, the incorruptible and 
unfading inheritance. It wakes up the soul to the new 
life and fills it with spiritual impulses and immortal aspira- 
tions. It beckons him to a new and higher life impossible 
to him before the new light that faith in Jesus Christ has 
kindled in his soul ; impossible to the unbeliever because 
unseen by him. He is a new creature ; new in all the 
springs and impulses and aspirations of his soul. His soul 
is filled with the light of life ; while by his side the unbe- 
liever walks in spiritual darkness, seeing only the seen ; 
the one not only a new creature, new in all the reasons 
and motives of his actions, but, for this very reason, a mys- 
tery to the other. The regenerated person is even now a 
mystery to the mere worldling. It was more so with the 
first Christians. Unbelievers have learned something 
about the children of God that was not known in the 
beginning. The apostle refers to this ignorance on the 
part of unbelievers as to the new life in Christ Jesus when 
he says: 

** Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed 
upon us that we should be called children of God ; and 
such we are : For this cause the world knoweth us not, 
because it knew him not." (1 John iii: 1.) The world 
knew not the children of God because the children of God 
saw the unseen by faith, and were walking by faith, while 
the people of the world were \valking simply by sight — 
that is, living simply and wholly w^itli reference to the 
things that are seen and temporary. Even now we call 
persons sane only when we can see a reason, a reasonable 
motive for their conduct; but when we can see no reason, 



156 Sweeney's sermons. 

no motives, for their manner of life, we call them insane. 
Upon this principle the first Christians were by tlje world 
judged insane. Our Lord himself was by many no doubt 
looked upon as crazy. Even his mother and brothers and 
sisters, before they received the light of life, esteemed him 
**off," as we would say of an insane person. Jesus was 
never understood by a single man or woman before his 
resurrection from the dead. He was in the world but the 
world knew him not. He went through the. world thronged 
by multitudes on every side, and yet a stranger to all. In 
respect of real spiritual life he was alone. This was be- 
cause there was in him the light of life, while the world 
was in the darkness of death. Nobody knew him. It is 
common for people to say, that when Peter said in the 
time of trial, *' I know not the man," he lied ; and I think 
he did; but I think he told the truth in the same sentence. 
Peter did not yet understand him. He was still in dark- 
ness. Peter was still looking at the things that were seen 
and temporary. He was seeking an earthly kingdom, an 
earthly inheritance, earthly glory and honor. He had not 
yet fully realized hope in Christ beyond this life. His 
faith failed in the death and his hope perished in the grave 
of Jesus, as was the case of all the disciples, male and fe- 
male. True they all expected him to be a king; but 
David was their highest idea of a king. They expected 
him to be a king in the flesh, and in Jerusalem. To the 
blessing and lionor and glory of such a kingdom they were 
aspiring. True ; Jesus had told them before that he 
would die and rise again, but they had not understood him. 
True ; the prophets had foretold his death and resurrec- 
tion, but they, like the prophets themselves, had not un- 
derstood the meaning of the Spirit. They were too **slow 
of heart to believe." They were looking for a restoration 



REGENERATION. 157 

of power to Israel under the Messiah and were contending 
and striving among themselves as to who should be greatest 
in his kingdom. Upon one occasion, even after the trans- 
figuration, when the disciples had been contending and 
disputing about the places of power and honor in the com- 
ing kingdom, ^^ Jesus called a little child and set him in 
the midst of them and said, Verily I say unto you, except 
ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt, xviii: 1-3.) 
They no doubt believed Jesus was the Messiah, but they 
had no just conception of what the Messiah was to be. 
They believed he would be a king, but had no true con- 
ception of the nature of his kingdom. They all needed to 
be converted — they needed to be regenerated — before they 
could enter into the kingdom of heaven. Indeed they 
had to be born again — born from above — before they 
could see the kingdom of God. (John iii: 3.) Their 
minds and hearts must be lifted higher than earth and 
** earthly things." They must see something different 
from a mortal man, king in Jerusalem, something grander 
than a kingdom in Palestine, something transcending an in- 
heritance in the land of Canaan. Their hearts must be 
lifted above the things on earth to things in heaven where 
Jesus now sits at God's right hand. Their eyes must be 
opened and they must be turned from darkness to light. 
Their understandings must be opened that they may un- 
derstand the scriptures and the power of God. They 
must ** look not at the things that are seen, but at the 
things that are not seen." All this is involved in regen- 
eration. This could not be until the resurrection of Jesus 
from the dead. Faith in Jesus Christ risen from the 
dead, therefore, was and is essential to regeneration ; that 
is, I mean regeneration in the sense of the renewal of the 



158 Sweeney's sermons. 

mind and heart. Without such a faith there can be no 
such regeneration. It was for want of such a faith that 
the disciples of Jesus, before his resurrection, needed to be 
converted before they could enter into the kingdom of 
heaven. The kingdom of heaven is spiritual, and must be 
spiritually discerned ; must be discerned by faith ; and that 
faith must be one that takes in the resurrection, the spir- 
itual and immortal life. Such a faith is faith in Jesus 
Christ risen from the dead. Faith in Jesus Christ, the Son 
of God, necessarily takes in the resurrection of the dead ; 
for he was declared to be the Son of God, *'by the resur- 
rection from the dead." (Rom. i: 4.) Peter, the fore- 
most of the disciples, had not this faith before the resurrec- 
tion ; and hence it was the Lord said to him only a little 
while before his death, *Svhen thou art converted strengthen 
thy brethren." (Luke xxii: 32.) The first passage I 
cited to show what this regeneration is throsvs some light 
on our Lord's meaning in these words addressed to Peter 
here and to all the disciples a little while before. '* Blessed 
be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living 
hope by the resurrection of Jesvs Christ frovi the dead.'' This 
passage tells icheyi Peter was begotten again and by what 
means : Being by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
the dead, it wa^, of course, after that event, and by faith 
in it. Peter had a light in his soul ^vhen he wrote these 
words that was not shining there when our Lord said to 
him, '* when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." 
Nor did he have this light of life in him when he said, ** I 
know not the man." He had been converted, meantime; 
had been renewed in his mind, regenerated, begotten 
again. Before the resurrection of our Lord he was striving 
for place and honor in an earthly kingdom ; now he sees 



REGENERATION. 159 

the kingdom of God, and is striving for an ' ' inheritance 
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, 
reserved in heaven '' for him. This fixes the beginning of 
the regeneration after the resurrection, when the Son of 
man ascended to ^^the throne of his glory." 

Some persons are very anxious U) find the church of our 
Lord on earth before the resurrection, particularly before 
the day of Pentecost ; and to such I wish to say that when 
they find a church before " the regeneration " — before the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ — the membership, if it be of 
men and women, will be unregenerate. It will be a mem- 
bership without faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the 
dead, and with no idea of the nature of his kingdom. 

But now let us notice the teaching of the passages of 
scripture already cited on the second part of our question ; 
that is, how is regeneration, so far as it consists of a spir- 
itual change in the sinner, effected? The answer can hardly 
be misunderstood. Here it is : 

** Begat us again unto a living hope hy the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead.^^ 

^* Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed 
but of incorruptible, through the word of God." 
"Brought us forth by the word of truth j'' 
'' I begat you through the gospel ^ 

It is worth while to notice the fact that where the regen- 
eration of the apostles themselves is spoken of Peter puts 
it in this form — ** Begat us^ by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead.' Nothing is said of ''through the 
word of truth." The apostles saw him after he arose from 
the dead ; and hence the regenerating power did not come to 
them ''through the word," or wliich is the same thing, 
*' through the gospel," as to others who received it by tlie 
preaching of the gospel. Tlie resurrection of Jesus, and 



160 Sweeney's sermons. 

the power of his resurrection, reaches the souls of all who 
did not see him after he was risen, through faith, and 
faith comes by hearing the word of God ; and thus they 
are begotten again through the word of God. 

When the time shall come for the completion of the 
regeneration by the renewal of the body, and of the earth 
and the heavens, as that will not depend upon the willing- 
ness and co-operation of men, as does the renewal of tlie 
souls and lives of men, it will be accomplished **in a 
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." 
Then the regeneration will be complete. ''And when all 
things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son 
also himself be subjected to him, that did subject all things 
unto him, that God may be all in alL" Amen. 



SEEMON VII. 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 

THE Disciples of Christ have within the present century, 
by their preaching, in their controversies with the vari- 
ous denominations, and in their investigations among 
themselves given special conspicuity to the book of Acts of 
Apostles. This is owing to two facts. First, that the Dis- 
ciples are aiming to return to New Testament Christianity, 
and, secondly, that that book is the only record we have 
of the preaching and the conversions ot apostolic times. 
If I were going to write a title by which this book 
should be known it would be simply. Acts of Apostles — 
not the Acts of the Apostles, as it has generally been called, 
as if it purported to give all the acts of all the apostles. 
The acts of the apostles is a good deal more than this book 
purports to be. It records only some acts of some apostles. 
It is now very generally conceded that Luke, the author 
of the Third Gospel, wrote the book. It is apparent even 
to the casual reader that he confined himself almost exclu- 
sively to Peter and Paul, and only gave a brief abstract 
of a few of their sermons and a meager account of the 
results ; intended only to be sufl3cient to afford the reader 
a knowledge of what was preached and what the people 
were required to do to be saved and enter into the cliurch 
of Christ, and thus to give a brief but sufficient account 
of the origin and propagation of Christianity in the world. 
It is this that gives the book its importance in our iuvi^sti- 
gations as to primitive Christianity — as to what was made 
11 U^>1) 



162 Sweeney's sermons. 

essential to salvation and church membership when the 
church was founded in the world. It is the only record 
we have of acts of apostles in carrying out the work 
assigned to them by our Lord in the commission. Jesus 
himself in his personal ministry restricted himself almost 
exclusively to the Jews. And it is evident further that 
he did not aim to preach to the multitudes even of the 
Jews. It was his purpose to call and instruct and qualify 
a few disciples, and after his personal work was done, after 
his resurrection, to send them to preach the gospel to the 
whole creation. To the multitudes of the Jews he for the 
most part spoke in parables, especially when speaking of 
his coming kingdom and the things pertaining lo it. What 
he meant by these parables he explained only to his disciples, 
and some of these explanations we have in the gospels. He 
intended his disciples, however, when the time should 
come, to preach in unparabolic language all things per- 
taining to his kingdom. And as the apostles were to 
preach literally to both Jews and Gentiles all that was 
couched in all the parables and figures used by the Lord 
when speaking to the multitudes, the book of Acts is an 
interpretation of the parables and figures of the gospels ; 
an infallible one, and therefore the only safe one. 

In studying this book, if we would be well guided, we 
should constantly bear in mind that it is the record made 
by apostles in carrying into eflTect the great apostolic com- 
mission. The commission and Acts are therefore corre- 
lated. The commission throws light upon Acts and Acts is 
the best interpretation of the commission. The commis- 
sion requires such a record as we have in Acts and Acts 
demands for its explanation such a commission as we have 
in the conclusion of the gospels. 

Let us, then, first briefly notice the commission under 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 163 

the provisions and requirements of which the record of 
Acts of Apostles was made. 

(Matt, xxviii: 18-19.) **And Jesus came and spake to 
them ; saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit ; teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." 

(Mark xvi : 15-16.) ''And he said unto them, Go ye, 
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he 
that believeth not shall be damned." 

(Luke xxiv: 46-47.) ''And he said unto them. Thus 
it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to 
rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance 
and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Here, as 
throughout the gospels, we have harmony in variety. 
Each of the writers gives prominence to some particular 
feature of the commission, while as to the facts there is 
perfect harmony. A synthesis of the records gives us the 
whole commission. We should in dealing with these records 
exercise the same common sense and common fairness that 
we would as jurors in dealing with the testimony of dilierent 
witnesses in a case in our courts. I have heard persons, 
apparently because their doctrine and practice cannot be 
reconciled with the commission in the words of Mark, con- 
tend that his record is wholly irreconcilable with that of 
Matthew ; and magnify a small circumstance into a suffi- 
cient cause for rejecting it, without knowing anything 
about the matter except that the words of INIark's record 
were apparently irreconcilable with their doctrine or ]>rac- 
tice, or both. But really I never could .^oe the slightc^st 



164 Sweeney's sermons. 

want of harmony between Matthew^ and Mark. On the 
other hand they seem to me to most perfectly harmonize. 
There is one fact, however, it is well to note. That is, that 
Matthew in his record of the con) mission seems to have 
especially in view^ the duty of the disciples whom the Lord 
w^as sending forth; that they were to teax^h and baptize the peo- 
ple ; w^hile Mark more particularly had in view and 
emphasized the duty of the persons taught ; that it was 
their duty to believe and be baptized. And this is by no means 
an uncommon thing. In fact it is a most common thing 
for different persons to emphasize different features or 
phases in describing the same thing. This fact observed, 
and there is no difficulty in seeing the most perfect accord 
of all the records of the commission ; and especially of 
those of Matthew and Mark, the two fullest. Let us 
see : *^ Teach all nations," as by Matthew^, means nothing 
different from ^' preach the gospel to every creature," as 
by Mark. The phrases mean precisely the same thing. 
Then, again, Matthew^ says, ''teach all nations, bajMziiig 
them'' — that is, of course, the persons taught were to be 
baptized — while Mark says, ''Preach the gospel to every 
.creature ; he that believes and is baptized." Mark mentions 
faith expressly ; while Matthew says nothing of baptizing 
any one without it, but says what clearly enough 
implies it. Then, Mark says, "shall be saved," and 
Matthew does not expressly; but he says, "baptizing 
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit," which implies as much. 

Luke gives especial prominence to the doctrine and duty 
of repentance, and to the fact that the apostles were to 
begin their work at Jerusalem. And what is there in this 
that may not be perfectly harmonized with the other fuller 
records? And all the variety there is in the cnso is in per- 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 165 

feet aeeord with any reasonable and defensible theory of 
the in?=piration of the writers. But this is sufficient as to 
the commission for my present purpose. 

The writer of Acts begins by recording the facts, that 
the apostles went to Jerusalem, after the ascension of Jesus, 
pursuant to his instructions, and remained there until the 
Holy Spirit came upon them as Jesus had promised, '^ and 
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to 
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance." (Acts ii : 4.) What I wish now especially to 
emphasize is, that the apostles were in their preaching and 
official procedure limited and bound by the terms of their 
commission. They could preach what it authorized them 
to preach, and only that. They could ofier salvation to 
the people only upon the terms therein stipulated. We 
must not allow ourselves for a moment to suppose that they 
would preach what they were not authorized to preach, or 
offer salvation to the people upon any other terms than 
those prescribed by the Lord in the commission. They 
would not, and, guided as they were by the Spirit, they 
could not transcend their authority. If, therefore, in any 
case recorded in Acts the details of their preaching and 
instructions are not full, but only a general statement 
made, we must interpret such general statement in 
the light of the commission. Otherwise we may do the 
apostles themselves injustice, besides falling into error 
ourselves and misleading others. In interpreting 
apostolic preaching, then, in any case recorded in the 
book of Acts we should always do so with an eye on their 
commission ; for we may be sure that their preaching, and 
their instructions to sinners as to the way of salvation, and 
their official procedure generally, will accord with its pro- 
visions. Not only was it tlieir duty to be governed and 



166 



directed by it as their diviuely given rule in discipling the 
nations, but they were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit 
in their apostolic work. 

In Act^ ii, we have an account of the first preaching 
of the apostles and of the first conversions made to Christ 
under the great commission. Peter was the preacher and 
Jerusalem the place, and the Pentecost following the ascen- 
sion was the time. After giving a somewhat detailed 
account of the sermon the writer gives the apostle's sum- 
mary statement in these words: "Let all the house of 
Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made that 
same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ." 
Then, after giving a pretty full account of the sermon — 
quite sufficient to inform his readers as to ivhat the apostle's 
doctrine was — the writer proceeds to report the effect of the 
sermon, in these words : '' Now when they heard this they 
were pricked in their heart and said unto Peter and to the 
rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall w^e do? 
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For 
the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all 
that are afar ofi', even as many as the Lord our God shall 
call. And with many other words did he testify and 
exhort, saying. Save yourselves from this untoward gen- 
eration. Then they that received his word were baptized ; 
and the same day were added about three thousand souls." 
(Ibid 37-41.) When we get all of the commission; that 
is, all its provisions and specifications, and then bring 
along side of it this report in Acts we see the most perfect 
correspondence. One thing might be noted as a seeming 
exception ; that is, that in the report there is no express 
mention of faithy that is, of the persons discipled being 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 167 

commauded or said to believe, as in the commission ; but 
it is evident that faith is so clearly implied as to make it 
wholly needless to mention it expressly. The hearers 
being *' pricked in their heart'' implies that they believed. 
Their asking Peter and the other apostles what they *'must 
do " also clearly implies that they believed. Peter's answer 
to them also implies that they believed and he knew 
it. Would he have commanded unbelievers to be bap- 
tized ? Was he authorized to do so ? Certainly not. His 
commission said, '' He that believes and is baptized shall be 
saved ; " and therefore we must conclude that they did 
believe and that Peter knew it when he commanded them 
to repent and be baptized. 

And, by the way, we have here the best interpretation 
of the much controverted phrase, ^^for the remission of 
sins" as connected with baptism. Did Peter promise those 
persons remission of sins before and without baptism, as 
some contend ? Or, in other words, did they come to 
remission before baptism, and did Peter when he told them 
to ^* repent and be baptized in the name ot Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, *'mean that they were to be bap- 
tized because of remission, as some suppose? Or with refer- 
ence backward to remission ? What was Peter's instruc- 
tions in his commission touching this point? ''He that 
believes and is baptized shall be saved." Now, with these 
words in his commission did Peter mean to tell those sin- 
ners at Jerusalem to be baptized because their sins were 
already remitted— because tliey were already saved? 
Surely not. Here, then, we have " sliall be saved " iollow- 
ing baptism in the commission, and " for remission of sins" 
following it in Acts, as explanatory of each other. In 
other words we have "shall be saved" in tlu^ nil<\ and 
*' for remission of sins" in the work under the rule. Tliis, 



168 Sweeney's sermons. 

to my mind, is a more satisfactory explanation of **for 
remission of sius " than can be made by any criticism of 
prepositions. I am not as staunch a believer in dying 
hard on prepositions as some people, although I prefer to 
be on the safe side even of them. But whenever we get 
to fighting right hard over the meaning of prepositions in 
Acts we are apt to get both eyes diverted from the com- 
mission ; whereas to be safely guided in our interpretations 
of Acts we should always keep one eye on the commission, 
under which and in accordance with which the record of 
Acts was made. 

But I wish now to emphasize the fact, that Acts ii, 
contains not only the first, but the fullest report of apos- 
tolic preaching and of details generally of making disciples 
to Christ, to be found in the whole book. And how very 
natural, and how very reasonable, that, being the first, it 
should also be the fullest ; that is, that in this report of the 
opening meeting of the campaign the writer should enter 
more into the details of the preaching of the apostle, of 
the efiect of the sermon, of the instructions of the apostle 
to enquiring sinners, and of the w^hole matter of making 
disciples to Christ under the great commission. When an 
important political campaign is to be made in any of our 
States, for illustration, the reporters for our papers usually 
make full reports of the speeches of the standard bearers of 
the parties opening the campaign , and thereafter in the 
campaign only make brief and general statements. They 
understand that they are reporting in the opening of the 
campaign and thereafter during its progress /or the*same 
readers, for the most part; and that, having at the begin- 
ning reported fully the statement and discussion of the 
issues in detail, it is useless thereafter to make their 
reports so full. It would be a needless repetition. Now, 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 169 

Luke, the writer of Acts, was a reporter, and wrote the 
whole book for the same reader, or readers — not some 
meetings and sermons for one class of readers, and other 
meetings and sermons for other readers. Like other sen- 
sible reporters he made his first report, at the opening of 
the great apostolic campaign, as to the sermon, as to its 
efiect and results, as to what sinners were told to do and 
what they did to be saved, a pretty lull one ; and there- 
after contented himself, when reporting meetings and ser- 
mons, with abridged and general statements. Let me be 
understood here : I do not mean to say that Peter did not 
preach the same things, and give precisely the same 
instructions to sinners as to the way of salvation, at other 
places and on other occasions, that he did at Jerusalem, on 
the day of Pentecost. On the other hand, I suppose he 
did. What I mean to say and emphasize is, that Luke in 
reporting him on subsequent occasions and at other places 
did not make his report as full of details as he did *^ at the 
beginning," and this, obviously, because it was unneces- 
sary. In a few instances, after the ''beginning at Jeru- 
salem," the writer gives pretty full abstracts of the ser- 
mons, as that of Peter's first sermon to the Gentiles, (Acts 
X,) and Paul's masterly assault upon idolatry at Athens, 
(Acts xvii,) and this because the occasions and circum- 
stances were notable ; the former as opening the campaign 
among the Gentiles, and the latter as beginning the war 
upon idolatry and image worship. In other instances only 
the fact that the preaching was done, without any details, 
is reported ; and a very brief statement of the result. In 
some instances it is reported that the apostles told the peo- 
ple to ''believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; " in others that 
they told them to " repent ye therefore and be converted 
(or turn about) that your sins may be blotted (uit." In 



170 Sweeney's sermons. 

some cases we are tolJ simply that persons ** believed;" 
in others that they '* turned to the Lord ; " in others that 
when they " believed they were baptized, both men and 
women; " then, again, that they, *' hearing, believed, and 
were baptized." 

Now, by what rule shall we be governed in studying 
and interpreting this book ? Shall we interpret the full, 
circumstantial, detailed report, made in the beginning, by 
the subsequent abridged reports ? Or, shall we interpret 
the subsequent abridged reports, destitute of details, by 
the first full report detailing all the particulars ? Shall 
we interpret the full by the incomplete, or the incomplete 
by the full? Which shall be our method? What says 
common sense ? What would be our method if we were 
studying a political campaign ? If the campaign were 
opened by a full and particular statement and discussion 
of the issues involved, fully reported ; and then followed 
by short abstract reports noticing briefly sometimes the 
discussion of one and at other times that of another of the 
issues; would we interpret the full report by the subse- 
quent abridged ones ? Who would ? We have a case at 
hand. How are we to understand the political teaching of 
Major McKinley or Gov. Campbell, the standard bearers 
of the two great political parties whose campaign in Ohio 
is just now on in good earnest? Each has ''opened his 
campaign," the one at Niles, the other at Sidney. Each 
opened out with an elaborate statement and discussion of 
the issues. Their opening speeches were fully reported 
and published in the papers of the State. Since the open- 
ing they have made many speeches at many places, cover- 
ing of course substantially the same ground taken at the 
beginning. But these subsequent speeches have not been 
fully reported, the reporters noticing sometimes one and 



ACTS OF APOSTLE. 171 

sometimes another point made, but publishing nothing 
fully. Now, shall we interpret their fully reported open- 
ing speeches by the subsequent abridged and partial ones ? 
Or, shall we allow the full reports to explain the partial ones ? 
To common sense the question answers itself. Well, that 
illustrates the point I am aiming to enforce. In studying 
Acts of Apostles every general statement of the doctrine 
preached, and of instructions given to sinners, must be 
allow^ed to include all the essential particulars elsewhere 
given. Then again, in all cases, the preaching and 
instructions given by the apostles, as well as the conditions 
of salvation, must be allowed to conform in all essential 
particulars to the requirements of the commission under 
which they were preaching. 

For want of observing these simple rules of interpreta- 
tion, dictated by common sense, and required by common 
fairness, many blunders have been made and great con- 
fusion created. I have now in mind a notable example. 
Dr. Ditzler, of Syriac notoriety, and a distinguished 
champion of the doctrine of justifi€ation by faith only, 
when called upon to look the second chapter of Acts full 
in the face — where we have reported what the apostle 
preached; and that when the people heard ''they 
were pricked in their heart," and asked Peter and the rest 
of the apostles, ''what must we do?" and how Peter re- 
plied, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ; " and how 
"with many other words did he testify and exhort, snyinir, 
Save yourselves from this untoward generation ; " and how 
"they that received his word were baptized ; " all tliose de- 
tails, and so perfectly conformable to the commission — the 
doctor instead of facing this record, starts on a wild ctiroer 
through the book of Acts, citing every general report that 



172 SWEENEY^S SERMONS. 

does not contaiu all these details, particularly such as 
make no mention of baptism, interpreting the full report 
of the second chapter down to subsequent abridged state- 
ments. Thus he arrays an incomplete report against a 
fuller one, and also makes the apostles unfaithful to their 
commission, by preaching salvation to sinners upon other 
terms than are therein prescribed. 

The advocates of the doctrine of justification by faith 
only, that is, by simple belief in the heart, all adopt the 
same method. Instead of explaining general statements 
by i)articular ones, they explain away particulars by gen- 
eral statements. 

For instance: They will take up the case of Cornelius 
the centurion, (Acts x.) and try to show that he was not 
commanded to do as were the persons at Jerusalem in the 
beginning; that Peter preached to him salvation by faith 
only. This passage in the report of Peter's sei mon on that 
occasion will be quoted with all possible emphasis; 
^' To him give all the prophets witness, that through his 
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
sins " (v. 43.) Now let us give attention to this case. 
In the first place, do we know that Luke's report here con- 
tains all that Peter said ? Certainly not. The words are 
Luke's report of him, correct and true no doubt, but not 
full : that is, a general statement of w hat he preached as 
all that was necessary, a more particular and circumstan- 
tial one having been given ^'at the beginning." But sup- 
pose WT take this report as being a full one, as containing 
all Peter said, and as meaning that *^ whosoever believeth 
in Jesus" — simply believes in the heart without any sort 
of confession, or expression, or action of that belief, with- 
out doing anything else, without the obedience of faith — 
"shall receive remission of sins: "then what? Why, 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. ITS 

then we have Peter at Csesarea preaching salvation to Gen- 
tiles on shorter terms than he did at Jerusalem to the 
Jews ; have we not ? There certainly is a difference if we 
take both reports as full and complete. There certainly is 
a difference between telling sinners that whosoever believes 
simply in his heart shall receive remission of sins, on the 
one hand ; and in telling sinners already pricked in their 
heart and asking what they must do, to ^* repent and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins," on the other hand. Considerable 
difference. What shall we say then ? Take both these 
reports as full and exact, and thus make Peter preach one 
way at Jerusalem and another way at Csesarea ? Or, one 
way to JevvS and another to Gentiles, thus making a differ- 
ence where God ''put no difference?" Did his commis- 
sion direct him, or authorize him, to preach salvation in 
one way to the Jews and in another way to the Gentiles — 
in one way at Jerusalem and in a different way at Csesarea ? 
Certainly not. It sent him under the same authority with 
the same gospel, the same salvatiou, on the same condi- 
tions precisely, to be preached to "all nations, beginning 
at Jerusalem„" But suppose we adopt the crank method, 
and interpret the first full report of Acts ii, by the subse- 
quent brief general statement of Acts x; then what? 
Why then we have Peter doing what he had no divine 
authority for doing ; that is preaching salvation by faitli 
only under a commission that says, "he that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved." Does that langunge justiiy 
even an apostle in preaching salvation in the name of 
Jesus Christ upon the single condition of belief in tlio 
heart ? Certainly not. It authorizes nobody to so ]^re:u'li, 
either to Jew or Gentile, either at JcM-usaleni or Ca^aroa, 
or anywhere else. We should not a(loj)ta method of \uicv- 



174 Sweeney's sermons. 

pretation that at once outrages all common sense and 
involves a defamation of the aporstle. 

We are told, moreover, that when Peter uttered the 
words about belief at the house of Cornelius '' the Holy 
Spirit fell on all them which heard the word " as an evi- 
dence of their pardon before they were commanded to be 
baptized. AVell, the report says, most certainly, that the 
Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. There 
is no question about that fact. Yes; and he came upon 
them as he did upon the apostles "at the beginning;" 
came in the extraordinary manner of the Apostolic times ; 
came conferring miraculous powers. "And they of the 
circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as 
came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was 
poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit ; for they heard 
them speak with tongues and magnify God." And it was 
after this that Peter "commanded them to be baptized in 
the name of the Lord." But Peter did not say that the 
extraordinary bestowment of the Holy Spirit upon them 
was an evidence that those persons were already saved 
before "he commanded them to be baptized in the name 
of the Lord." Nor did Luke. Nor does any body else 
that knows. Who, then, is authorized to put such a con- 
struction upon that extraordinary circumstance as to make 
Peter contradict himself, and to preach salvation upon terms 
shorter than those prescribed by the Lord in his com- 
mission ; as to make him preach that whoever simply 
believes in his heart shall receive remission of sins before 
and without being baptized as an expression of that faith, 
notwithstanding he had before preached to sinners who 
had heard the word, and been pricked in their heart, 
and asked what they must do, to "repent and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 175 

the remission of sins ; " and notwithstanding his commis- 
sion said, ^*he that beiieveth and is baptized shall be 
saved." This extraordinary outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
upon the first Gentile converts, whatever may be its mean- 
ing, was not intended to, and must not be so construed as 
to set aside the gospel. 

It is better and safer to allow this shorter report in Acts 
X, to harmonize with the first and fuller one in Acts ii, 
and to allow both to harmonize with the commission. 

Again ; the case of the salvation of the jailer at Phil- 
ippi is often brought forward as a conclusive proof of the 
doctrine of salvation by faith only — all because the apostle 
Paul is reported as saying to him "believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house." 
Well, let us read and examine the report given of that 
case : " And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and 
sang praises unto God ; and the prisoners heard them. 
And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the 
foundations of the prisou were shaken ; and immediately 
all the doors were opened, and every ones bands were 
loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking out of 
his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, drew out his 
sword and would have killed himself, supposing that the 
prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, 
saying, do thyself no harm ; for we are all here. Theu he 
called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling and 
fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and 
said. Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, 
and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of tlie 
Lord, and to all that were in his house. And ho took 
them the same hour of the night, and was^hod their stripes, 
and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when 



176 Sweeney's sermoxs. 

he had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.'' 

Now if we interpret this brief report so as to make Paul 
and Silas preach to the jailer that he could be saved upon 
the one single condition of belief in his heart, will not 
that make it conflict with the fuller report of Peter at 
Jerusalem at the beginning, as well as with the Lord's com- 
mission to the apostles ? It certainly will. And we are 
not obliged to so interpret it. Did Paul and Silas tell 
the jailer to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, simply in 
his heart, without in any way expressing it, without the 
obedience of faith even begun, and that he should then 
and there, without doing anything else, be saved? Cer- 
tainly not. There is no necessity upon us to put any such 
meaning upon this report as to throw it into conflict with 
other reports in Acts, as well as into a defiance of the com- 
mission. And moreover, had Paul so taught, it would 
have been clearly contrary to his own experience in com- 
ing to remission of sins. For was he not instructed in 
accordance with the commission and with our report of 
Peter in Acts ii, after that he had seen the Lord with 
his own eyes, and heard his voice with his own ears, and 
believed ; after that he had acknowledged him Lord, and 
asked *^ what w^ilt thou have me to do ; " after that he had 
prayed and the Lord had heard his prayer ; was he not 
after all this told to " arise and be baptized and wash away 
thy sins calling on the name of the Lord?" (Acts ix : 
18-19, and xxii : 16.) 

Paul and Silas told the jailer to *' believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; ' of course they did ; as the commission 
required. And they did not wait for him to ask any ques- 
tion about Jesus Christ, or about how he could believe ; 
but at once *' they spake unto him the word of the Lord, 



ACTS OF APOSTLES. 177 

and to all that were in his house/' This discourse here 
is not reported at all, Luke, the writer, having before 
reported what it was to preach '' the word of the Lord," 
especially '^at the beginning." Then what? why, ''he 
took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
stripes, and was baptized he and all his straightway ; and 
when he had brought them unto his house, he set meat 
before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
house ? " 

Why all this? There is nothing in the report here 
given, of what the apostles said, about baptism. Not a 
word. But had there been as full a report made here as 
was made of Peter at the beginning, we would see in the 
record why this man was baptized the same hour of the 
night. We would see also what I am laboring to prove 
we ought in all fairness to infer ; that is, that the jailer 
was taught to do, just what he did do, just what the peo- 
ple at Jerusalem were by the apostle Peter taught to do, 
and did do. And when he had so done, then, and not 
till then is it recorded, that ''he set meat before them, 
and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." And 
this no doubt reminded Paul again of his own experience. 
(Actsix: 18, 19.) 

In conclusion, let me say, though it maybe a repetition, 
and seem even tedious, that the report of every case of 
salvation recorded in the whole book of Acts, as well as 
every thing said upon the subject, can with a little atten- 
tion be made and seen to perfectly harmonize with the 
first and fullest report in the book, as well as with the pro- 
visions of the commission under which the record of Acts 
was made. 
12 



SERMON VIII. 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 

"But covet earnestly the best gifts : aud yet shew 
I unto you a mora excellent way." (1 Cor. xli: 31.) 

THE way of faith, hope and love is the more excellent 
way ; and the apostle called it more excellent than 
the miraculous gifts in the church of Corinth, and that 
were in the churches generally in the first century. It will 
be proper for us in this discourse, before noticing the more 
excellent way, briefly to consider the miraculous gifts 
referred to. 

Now, a miracle means a mighty work, so mighty that 
people wonder at it ; so mighty as to be superhuman and 
hence attributed to God by theists, and to be considered a 
sign of his presence with and approval of the person by 
whom the mighty work is performed. So that in the 'New 
Testament the same phenomenon is at once a miracle, a 
wonder, and a sign. In fact the same Greek word is thus 
variously translated. 

Most of the miracles wrought by Jesus were simply 
effects produced in an unusual way, in a way the people 
were unused to ; and hence in what may be called a super- 
natural way. AVe call that supernatural which is not 
brought about by or in accordance with the regular oper- 
ation of the laws of nature as we understand them. It 
may not be amiss for us to notice a few of the New Testa- 
ment miracles. 

1. Jesus converted water into wine. This, T believe, 
(178) 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 179 

was his first recorded miracle. Now the mere fact of mak- 
ing wine of water is nothing to cause a great wonder. All 
wine is made of water. We have some adulterated stufi* 
called wine, made largely of unwholesome drugs — and 
even that is not made without water. But not to speak of 
that. All pure wine is made of water. And we are so 
familiar with the way God ordinarily makes wine of water 
that we see it done every year and never stop to think of 
it. We know how the rains fall upon the ground, and 
the water is filtered through the soil, up through the roots 
of the vines, and on up through the vines, and is bottled 
up and hung out in clusters of bottles on the branches of 
the vines. We have only to break the bottles and squeeze 
out the wine. And we are so used to see this work going 
on that we stop not to think of it ; but call it perfectly 
natural. But when Jesus spake the word of command 
only and the water became wine at once, the method of 
doing the thing was so new, and one with which the people 
were so unfamiliar, that they called it a wonder. 

2. Jesus fed a multitude of five thousand men besides 
women and children with five loaves and two fishes, and 
twelve baskets full of fragments remained, after they had 
all eaten and were filled. This was a miracle, a wonder, a 
sign of God's presence and power. Now the thing done 
in this case was not so much a wonder as the way in which 
it was done. For does not God feed all the multitudes? 
He certainly does. But we are so familiar Avith the way 
he does it ordinarily that we never stop to wonder at it — 
or even to think of it as much as we ought. He increases 
or multiplies a few grains and a few fishes up to a suflS- 
ciency to feed a multitude right before our faces every 
year; does he not? Yes. But when Jesus caused the 
growth or increase of a few loaves and fishes to take place 



180 Sweeney's sermons. 

almost instantly, and in the hands or mouths of the people ; 
that was an unusual and an extraordinary way of doing 
the thing, and we call it a miracle, a wonder, a sign. The 
ivay in which the thing was done was the miracle. 

3. Some people have been wondering and staggering along 
the ages at the Mosaic account of the creation of man. 
That God should by a direct exertion of his power make a 
body out of the dust of the earth, and put life into it, is a 
thing the like of which we have never seen. And so men 
stagger at the Scripture doctrine of the resurrection. But, 
as a matter of fact, does not God make all bodies of the 
ground, and put life into them? Certainly. The work 
of body making out of the ground, and of life giving too, 
is going on before our eyes. — in fact, in us — every day and 
hour. But the way we are somewhat familiar with, and 
call it natural. And, so it is. God brings our bodies out 
of what we call the original elements, and gives to all life 
and breath ; but he does not do it in the way he created 
Adam and gave him breath and life, or in the way he will 
raise the dead to life again. The way in which he created 
Adam of the ground, and the way in which he will bring 
all our bodies out of the ground again, is the thing we 
wonder and stagger at, rather than the thing done, itself. 
I repeat, then, the creation of a thing, or the producing of 
an effect, out of the usual way, is a miracle, a wonder, and 
a sign of the power of God, above what we call nature — 
nature being simply what we are used to, and the super- 
natural what we are unused to. 

NT)w, the order of things we are used to we call the law 
of nature. We are not living in an age of miracles. It is 
better to admit this freely. It is most likely that all 
alleged miracles of this age are frauds. Of course, even 
in our day we come across many strange and wonderful 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 181 

things ; but strictly speaking they are not miracles. We 
are not needing miracles. If we were we should no doubt 
have them. We are living in an age of law, and we ought 
to be glad of it. But law is not God, although some peo- 
ple do deify it and worship it, if they may be said to worship 
at all. Any way, law is all the God some people have. But 
law creates nothing, originates nothing, ends nothing. Such 
persons as are everlastingly prating about law as relentlessly 
and unchangeably governing all things, can have no cre- 
ations, no origins, whatever in their faith. All of them 
who have intelligence enough to be consistent deny crea- 
tion outright. They are logically compelled to do so. Law 
creates nothing ; but law is their only God ; tlierefore 
there is no creation with them. Again ; creation is a mir- 
acle ; but law, as known to us, performs no miracles ;, 
therefore miracles are in the teeth of their God. They, 
hence, very consistently, deny all miracles. They believe 
nothing, admit nothing the like of which they never saw. 
They put it this way; our experience teaches that the 
laws of nature are uniform and uninterrupted in their 
operations ; but our experience teaches that human testi- 
mony is sometimes false ; therefore human testimony can 
not prove a miracle. And this is specious. It looks like 
an argument and sounds like a syllogism. But of course it 
is defective. One of its premises has in it an uncertain 
clause, so to speak; a clause of doubtful meaning. '* Our 
experience " is a clause of entirely too doubtful meaning 
to go into a syllogism, and especially a syllogism meant to 
settle so important a question. Since the voice of all 
history, profane and sacred, is in favor of miracles, what 
can be the meaning of '' our,^' in the phrase, ''our 
experience teaches"? Whom does it include? But not to 
make too much of a trifling defect in a syllogism, lotus j)ro- 



182 Sweeney's sermons. 

ceed to examine the subject for a few moments aggressively. 
Now, because I never saw a miracle, or anybody else 
that ever saw one, or anybody that ever saw anybody 
else that ever saw a miracle does it follow that no miracle 
ever was ? Sup230se it to be granted that there has been 
no miracle wrought wdthin the last twelve or fifteen, or 
even eighteen centuries, does that fact lessen the prob- 
ability that there were miracles wrought at some time 
in the past ? Well, let us see ? Let us see if we are not 
coriijDclled to believe in some things the like of which we 
never saw ? Are not — as already intimated in this dis- 
course — are not all begirinings miracles ? Let us take the 
case through the courts of nature. It will be admitted 
that nature has three realms, or kingdoms ; the vegetable, 
the mineral, and the animal, to say no more now. First, 
then we'll go into the vegetable kingdom ; and we'll take 
a tree, and it shall be an oak tree. *Xow, there are some peo- 
ple in the world who deny all objectiv^e existence, even their 
own. We will leave such behind in this inquiry, and 
take with us only such as believe in objective existences. 
There stands our oak tree. There it is in most of the 
five zones of earth. Whence came that oak tree ? From 
the acorn, we are told. Correct. Oak trees grow from 
acorns. All oaks do. That's a law, so to speak, to which 
we know no exception. '* Our experience" teaches that 
all oaks grow out of acorns. But whence came the acorn ? 
From the oak tree, we are told. Correct again. All real 
acorns grow on oaks. It has been said that the Yankees 
can make wooden nutmegs. I doubt that. Anyhow, 
they can't make acorns, real, live acorns, such as will pro- 
duce oak trees. They grow only on oak trees. That's 
another law, to which we know no exception. ''Our 
experience " teaches that all acorns grow on oaks. Oaks 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 183 

grow out of acorns, and acorns grow on oaks. Oaks grow 
out of acorns and acorns grow on oaks ; and so we go, in a 
circle. Law knows no beginning and promises no ending 
to the process. Law must say ; so it has always been, and 
so it must be evermore. But reason revolts at this begin- 
ningless and endless process. This is itself something ^Hhe 
like of which we never saw.'' It is harder to believe than 
all the miracles of the Bible. What then ? Why, either 
the oak tree or the acorn, one or the other, was first. And, 
no matter which, it was a miracle; was it not? It would 
be no more difficult to raise a dead body out of the tomb, 
or create a new body out of the dust of the earth, than to 
make an oak tree without an acorn to begin with, or an 
acorn without an oak tree to begin with. Which was first, 
the oak or the acorn ? Say the one, and it is a miracle ; 
say the other, and that's a miracle. Turn it either way, 
and you have a miracle at the beginning. 

The same is true in the mineral kingdom so-called, 
everywhere you go. There is the lake, a large body of 
living, moving, breathing, murmuring waters; whence 
came it? From the rivers, from the brooks, the rills, and 
finally from the springs, we are told. Eight. All lakes 
are tlius made and supplied. But whence came the 
springs in the mountains ? From the lakes. Yes ; by 
evaporation the water is taken from the lake, and by cer- 
tain atmospheric conditions clouds arc formed, and the 
rains and snows fall, and the waters fill tlie pockets of the 
rocks; and thus the springs are made. All springs are 
made and supplied in this way. The Like makes the 
springs, and tlie springs make the lake. In a circU^ again. 
Which was first, the lake or the springs? One or the 
other was. Which? Well, no ]iiatter which, it was a 
miracle ; was it not? 



184 Sweeney's sermons. 

The same, it ouly need be mentioned, holds true in the 
animal kingdom. Take the bird for example. Which was 
first the bird or the egg ? One or the other was first. No 
matter which we say; it was a miracle. ''Our experi- 
ence '' knows nothing of any such bird or egg — that is, of 
a bird before there was an egg, or of an egg before there 
was a bird? So that we must either deny all orighis or 
admit miracle. Agnostics, that know almost all things, 
and all avowed atheists, have failed so far to propound any 
theory or even any hypothesis that can account for 
origins. Evolution which, of course is nothing more 
than an hypothesis, fails to reach the origin of life or of 
species. It assumes, but confesses its inability to prove, 
even the transmutation of species. So that, after all, there is 
nothing more reasonable than the simple old Mosaic account: 
** In the beginning God created'' — created everything 
with its *' seed in itself." This simple statement has stood 
a good deal of rubbing, and to-day is the most reasonable 
and most satisfactory account of origins we have — in fact 
it is the only account we have. 

The laws of nature are God's laws, by which he rules the 
natural world. Miracles are results of exertions of his 
power over and above nature. If God would manifest 
himself to men otherwise than through nature, as the God 
of nature, that manifestation must be a miracle. Chris- 
tianity is, in an important sense a creation, and creation 
is a miracle. It is a revelation and revelation is a miracle. 
Revelations could be confirmed to men only by miracles ; 
that is by displays of God's power over and above nature — 
outside of the law^s of nature. This is the office Jesus and 
the apostles assigned to supernatural w^orks. Jesus him- 
self said to the unbelieving Jews : '' If I do not the works 
of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 185 

believe not me, believe the works [done] that ye may 
know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in 
him." (John x: 37, 38.) Again, in the Hebrew let- 
ter we read : ** How shall we escape if we neglect so great 
salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the 
Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ; 
God also bearing them witness both with signs and won- 
ders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
acording to his own will." (Heb. ii : 3, 4.) 

The age in which Jesus and his apostles and prophets 
lived was the formative period of Christianity, and hence 
the age of miracles and extraordinary things. The gifts 
that were in the first churches; ** apostles," *^ prophets," 
** teachers," '* miracles," ^'healings," ^' helps," ^^govern- 
ments," ** tongues," etc., etc., were necessary for the rev- 
elation and establishment of Christianity in the world, 
but not intended to be abiding as they were not generic 
to it. They were to ** cease " when the formative period 
was passed. 

When that which was intended to be perfected by their 
use was come they were to be *' done away." Hence says 
the apostle : ** When that which is perfect is come, then 
that which is in part shall be done away." That is, the partial 
or unfinished state of things existing when the apostle 
wrote, in which they knew Christianity only in part and 
prophesied in part, should pass away, when that perfect 
** system of religion " then being revealed was brought in. 

A thing is *^ perfect" in all its parts. Christianity was 
not so revealed when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, but 
we now have it so in the New Testament. The miracles 
of the beginning have not come down to us, but that 
wliich is perfect has. 

**N()w abideth faith, lioju^ and love; these three, 



186 Sweeney's sermons. 

and the greatest of these is love." The apostle did 
not mean by " now " in this sentence to mark the 
then present tense, but rather the point at which he had 
come in his narrative. He had come to the time when 
the perfect had come and the partial was done away ; to 
the time when revelation was complete, and all tongues 
and interpretations of tongues, and prophecies had ceased 
— '' now/' at this stage in the great drama, '' abideth faith, 
hope and love." Miracles have not come down to us. We 
have no particular use for them. We shall likely have no 
more miracles until the '' time of the end." Endings are 
miraculous as well as beginnings. Law ends nothing. 
God will one day break up the present order of things. I 
should be glad to see it. The thought of being eternally 
in and a part of what we call the order of nature — which 
like a great wheel is to revolve just the same forevermore 
— is to me perfectly suffocating. But meantime we shall 
need faith, hope and love. Well, let us see : 

1. We shall need faith certainly while we live in the 
flesh ; while we are in this state of being. We may need 
it forever. I incline to think we shall. We shall need 
the Christian faith until our regeneration and redemption 
are complete. And then possibly afterward we shall always 
believe in God. It seems to me that faith in him is a 
necessity to our happiness, growing out of our inferiority 
and dependence ; and therefore if we shall never rise to a 
level with him and fully comprehend his kno\Yledge and 
wisdom, we shall always need to believe in him. God will 
not cease to be our Father nor we to be his children even 
in heaven. But this is further on than revelation was 
meant to afford us light. We must live in one world at a 
time. 

Here, in this life, we n*" 1 faith. This we know. Faith 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 187 

is the apprehension of the unseen, and hence the unknown. 
We can apprehend God only by faith. Limited as we are 
by our frail and dull mortality we cannot see him, we cannot 
know him. In our apprehension of him, in all that w^e do in 
reference to him, and in our enjoyment of him, we are shut 
up to faith. Just as a little child cannot know the mind of its 
parents and comprehend the reasons in their minds for its 
training, restraining and constraining, so we cannot know 
the mind of God and comprehend the reasons in his mind 
for what he does and requires us to do in our training 
and government. 

We apprehend God by faith. We come to him by 
faith. We walk by faith. Our life in Christ is a life of 
faith. Our warfare is a fight of faith. We are the chil- 
dren of God by faith. And, as children, when trouble 
and sorrow overtake them, lean upon the lap of the par- 
ent and cry away their grief, so we lean upon the strong 
arm of our Father and weep our sorrows away ; but sorrow^- 
ing not as those who have no hope. Orphans ofttimes 
weep to the pitiless winds. Who ever saw an orphan 
weep and was not sad himself? The man without faith in 
God as his father, in this world of sin, and sorrows, and 
uncertainties, is an orphan in the severest sense. 

Jesus said to his disciples when they were disappointed 
and sorrowful. *' Let not your heart be troubled; believe 
in God; believe also in me." This he says to all his sor- 
rowing disciples. Faith in him and in the Father is our 
cure for all the ills of this life. This dissipates the clouds 
that would liide our sky. This drives back the dark shad- 
ows that would come over our hearts and lives — faith in 
God, our Father ; faitli in Jesus, our Savior. 

But faith in its Bible s(Mise nutans ni()rc\ on tlie believer's 
part, than mere apprehent^ion, or own trust. It ini^ans 



188 Sweeney's sermons. 

more than any mere condition of soul. It means faith- 
fubiess. When it does not include this it is dead ; or as a 
thing unborn. You, if a parent, want your child to 
believe and trust in you ; and you want it to be faithful 
to you. Its faith in you does not count for much in your 
estimation unless it includes faithfulness to you. Does it? 
So our faith in God and in Jesus, so long as it is a mere 
conviction, no matter how strong, so long as it is a mere 
subjective condition, so long as it is a mere apprehension 
of God as the Father and of Jesus as the Savior, amounts 
to nothing profitable to us, nor is it well pleasing to God. 
It must include faithfulness and trust. Then it is a real, 
living, actual faith ; and becomes the ground, the confi- 
dence, the support of hope, the confidence of things 
hoped for. 

2. Hope. We shall need the hope of the gospel through 
this life — until we cross the dark river, and reach the 
bright home beyond. We are all the time saved by hope. 
It is tope that sustains the mind in the trials of life. 
Without it the mind would be a wreck. Hopelessness is 
insanity. Blighted hope fills our insane asylums. All 
sane persons hope ; but not all who hope have the hope of 
the gospel. Hope is the mind laying hold on something 
beyond to pull through the trials of the present. The 
wicked man, the godless man, hopes in something. He 
says, ''there is a better time coming;" ''by and by, it 
will be better with me;" "it will not always be thus 
dark ; " and thus he pulls on through the trials that would 
crush him without something, real or imaginary, for his 
mind to take hold of. 

The hope of the gospel is the good hope, the hope that 
will not fail us, or disappoint us ; the hope that maketh 
not ashamed. It is the glorious hope. It is the stay of 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 189 

the Christian's soul in his terrific warfare in this life. It 
reaches beyond all our trials and troubles, beyond the river 
of death, beyond the valley of shadows. It lights up life, 
death, the valley and the glorious hill-tops beyond. Hope 
is our soul anchor, sure and steadfast, reaching clean over 
this life, and death, into that within the veil, whither for 
us Jesus our fore-runner has gone. Hope speaks to us in 
our times of sorrow, when the heart is sick and the soul is 
sad, when we lay down the flowers on the new made grave 
of our most loved one of earth, and says in sweet accents : 
*' In the sweet by and by." 

3. Love. '' The greatest of these is love." Love in the 
broadest sense. Love for God and humanity. Not a 
mere sentiment. Not a mere enjoyable condition of soul. 
That, but more. Not in word only, but love indeed and 
in verity. Love that fills and moves our souls, and moves 
us all over — moves us Godward and manward. This love 
is generic to Christianity. Love never fails. It is eter- 
nal, immortal, because it is of God. We cannot conceive 
of God as believing, or hoping, but God is love. 

This love is what the world most needs. There is more 
in it for the world than there is in miracles. The lack of 
it, and the possession of its opposite, is what's the matter 
with the world. Love does no one evil. Love thinks no 
evil. It may be compelled to see evil, but it is not on a 
hunt for it. It is full of pity, compassion and mercy. 
It's search is for opportunities to do good, to relieve dis- 
tress, to wipe away tears, to bless, to save. Instead of love 
the people of the world are full of envy, hateful and 
hating one another. Envy is full of eyes to see, and of 
ears to hear, and of tongues to speak evil. Envy thiuketh 
all evil. It construes everything in the darkness of its 



190 Sweeney's sermon. 

owu blighting shadow, while love interprets all things in 
the light of itself. 

Let a young man make a misstep and go wrong. Too 
many people were "looking for it." It was ''just as they 
expected ; " and they love to talk about it now that it has 
come as they expected, and possibly predicted to some 
confidential friend — ''just between you and me," of 
course. But there was one who was not looking for this 
evil ; and it is not just as she expected. Neither does she 
love to talk about it. She even thinks about it with a 
heavy heart and many deep sighs by day, and dreams 
under its awful shadow by night. That one is his mother. 
She loves him. She explains, construes and interprets 
every point in the case in the light of her own undying 
love for her child. The world may turn against him; the 
companions of his earlier and more prosperous days may 
forsake him, as they are very apt to do ; the jury may 
find him guilty, if he has no money, and the judge may 
pass sentence against him, and the sherifi may execute it ; 
but his mother will follow him to the prison or gallows. 
The world may say he ought to die, and he may die ; but 
his mother will stick to him till the last minute ; and then 
at least one earnest prayer will follow his poor, naked, shiv- 
ering soul as it is launched into the shoreless ocean. And 
should that soul go on down the dark slopes of despair to 
all eternity it will not likely be because a mother's love 
failed her child. She will not give him up when he is 
dead ; but will keep him in her heart, and his picture in 
her own drawer, and will go on through life explaining, 
and interpreting, and construing in favor of her child. 
She would not allow herself to believe her child was really 
at heart a murderer. No, no ! Some demon had gotten 
possession of her child, and ruined him. The demon was 



THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 191 

the murderer. And, somehow — she may not be able to 
make out the case right clearly to outsiders as it is in her 
heart — somehow she will hope, though it be hoping against 
hope, still she will interpret the love of the Father by the 
love of the mother, and hope. Love " hopeth all things." 

Love then, love that fills and warms our souls toward 
God ; that fills and warms our ^uls towards all men ; that 
goes out in loving obedience to God ; that goes out toward 
all men as it has opportunity, in deeds like itself: this is 
what the world needs, now, more than tongues, or prophe- 
cies, or all miracles. ^' Now ahideth faith, hope and love, 
these three, and the greatest of these is love." 

This is the ^ ' more excellent way," 



SERMON IX, 



Paul's a^'swer to king agrtppa. 

•'Then A^ippa said unto Paul, Almost thou per- 
suades: me to be a Christian. And Paul said. I would 
to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me 
this day, were both almost, and altogether — such as 
I am except these bonds." Acts xxvi: 28, 29. 

IT matters very little in Tvhat spirit or with what mean- 
ing King Agrippa said, ''Almost thou persuadest me 
to be a Christian ; " whether he was really almost so per- 
suaded, and, therefore, gave an honest expression of his 
state of mind, as some suppose; or, as others suppose, 
spake in irony, meaning to belittle the apostle and his 
cause, and call attention to his own greatness — to minify 
the apostle's speech and magnify himself. Anyhow the apos- 
tle was in earnest. If, as a great man to start with, Paul 
was one thing more than another, he was an earnest man. 
Earnestness characterized his whole life from the first we 
hear of him to his last word and act. Such was the apos- 
tle's manifest earnestness in this answer before King 
Agrippa that the governor, who had heard him before, 
" Festus, said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thy- 
self; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, 
I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the 
words of truth and soberness.''' Such was the soberness, 
the earnestness with which the apostle spake that Festus 
thought he was mad. 

We shall not concern ourselves then in this discourse 
with the lanofuage of Agrippa, but rather with the apos- 
(192) 



Paul's answer to king agrippa. 193 

tie's reply, in which he owned that it was his aim and his 
pleasure to persuade men to be Christians ; not simply one 
king, but all who heard him : not to be almost but alto- 
gether Christians, such as he himself was, excepting his 
bonds. 

The first thing suggested by his reply that we shall no- 
tice is that there is such a thing as being partly and yet 
not wholly a Christian. 

1. Some persons are called Christians because they 
were born, and reared, and educated, and live, in a Chris- 
tian country ; because they have been used to Christian 
civilization, customs and* usages; because they date their 
letters ''in the year of our Lord," and if profane, as Chris- 
tians in this sense oiten are, swear by the name of 
Jesus instead of that of Mahomet, or Jupiter, or Buddha, or 
that of any other founder of a religion. That is, they are 
Christians only in the sense of historic or geographical 
classification ; as one must be a Jew, or a Christian, or a 
Mohammedan, or a Pagan, or be left out entirely. There 
are more Christians in this sense than there are such as 
Paul was. Col. Ingersoll would be called a Christian 
in Arabia! In this sense persons are called Christians 
without being Christian in any sense worth speaking of. 

2. We have many persons in all Christian countries, 
and possibly in some others, who are Christians simply in 
judgment ; that is, persons who in their own minds have 
decided in favor of Christianity as against all other re- 
ligions; persons who even believe the Christian religion 
to be true, right, divine; who really believe it is right to 
be a Christian ; who have promised themselves, time and 
again, when sick, or otherwise alarmed, that they would 
try to become such, and expect at some future day to do 
so, but have deferred a practical consideration of the 

13 



194 Sweeney's sermons. 

matter. There are many such persons in all Christian 
countries; of good education and intelligence in secular 
matters, persons in high places who consider themselves 
too busy with matters of state, matters of commerce or 
trade, and of the general interest and welfare of the 
country, to give the matter of becoming a Christian their 
personal attention ; and many who seem willing to com- 
mit the interests of their souls to the priests, the preachers, 
or the churches, or to the Lord — anybody who will take it, 
so that they may be excused from a personal consideration 
of the matter. They send their children to Sunday-school, 
and are glad even to see them jdin the church ; pay their 
wives' church subscriptions, and even go with them to 
church on Sundays and holidays. But such persons lack 
a good deal more than his * ' bonds " of being Christians 
such as Paul was. 

3. Then, again, there are many persons who no 
doubt are Christians at heart, as we often say ; that 
is, they are not only convinced in their minds that Jesus 
is the Christ the Son of God, and the Savior, but they 
love him ; their feelings and desires are all on the side of 
Christianity. They hear and think of the story of Jesus 
only with pleasureful interest. But they go no further. 
They have been mistaught, it may be ; or they may not 
have been taught at all as to their further duty. They 
have been taught, it may be, to look for some- 
thing they have never been able to see, or to listen for 
something they have never been able to hear, or wait for 
some experience they have never had. They are waiting, 
in consequence of such teaching for some mysterious and 
wonderful change, more than faith in the Son of God and 
a sincere desire to be a Christian, that will be to them an 
evidence of sins forgiven and of their acceptance with God. 



Paul's answer to king agrippa. 195 

They have not the imagination that some have, and cannot 
have the experience that some have supposed they had, 
and they suppose that they are not suiBciently converted 
to take any further step in the matter. And they are 
waiting for something they know not what; but some- 
thing nevertheless. They may have been taught there is 
nothing they can do ; that if they belong to the elect, God 
will make it known to them in his own good time, and if 
they are not of the elect, why, then they are not ; and 
they really fear to try to do anything lest they should be 
found fighting against God. And they wait. Many no 
doubt thus honestly wait all their lives, and die waiting. 
Christians at heart. No doubt it is better to be a Christian 
at heart than not to be. No doubt God will judge rightly 
all honestly misguided persons. But these honestly mis- 
taken, misguided Christians at heart are not Christians 
such as Paul was. 

Then, a great many people who are Christians at heart 
are confused by foolish preaching and the jargon of the 
creeds. The preachers instead of telling the simple story 
of Jesus of Nazareth and teaching the people the duty of 
faith, obedience and trust, have been preaching about the 
Godhead, the Holy Trinity, the fore-knowledge of God, 
the divine decrees, unconditional election and reproba- 
tion, etc. etc., and the people have failed to understand 
them. The fact is the preache^^s themselves have not under- 
stood them. They have been preaching these profound 
doctrines, as they doubtless suppose they are, because they 
are in the creeds of their churches, and because the 
preacher must believe and preach them in order to be or- 
thodox, and because one who is not orthodox is heterodox, 
and it has always been and always will be a terrible thing 
to be heterodox. The consequence is that many honest 



196 Sweeney's sermons. 

souls, Christians at heart — made so by the simple story of 
Jesus which they have gotten in spite of the creeds — are 
left in utter confusiou upon the whole matter of further 
duty, and of becoming Christians, such as Paul was. 

4 Then there is such a thing as being a Christian in 
fact This is more than birth, education, country; more 
than the convictions of the mind and decision of the judg- 
ment ; more than sympathies, desires, feelings, or a Chris- 
tian at heart. One becomes a Christian formally and in 
fact by publicly confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, 
and by putting him on in his appointed way — the way he 
appointed when he committed the gospel to his disciples 
and sent them to all the nations to preach it. Let us see ; 
*' Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing 
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit. (Matt, xxviii: 19.) ''Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." (Markxvi: 16.) This 
is the Lord's appointed way ; and it's right or it's not right. 
Which shall we say? 

Some persons have been taught that there is nothing in 
forms — and therefore there is nothing in becoming a 
Christian /or»ta//?/ — that baptism is a mere form, and in no 
sense vitally connected with the matter of becoming a 
Christian. Well, it is true that baptism is a form — not a 
^^mere'' form, but a form — the baptizing of an infant 
is what might be called a mere form. It is true, 
also, that by being baptized the believer formally becomes 
a Christian, formally puts on Christ, is formally initiated 
into the body of Christ. Who is authorized to say that 
there is nothing essential in formsl God did not leave 
the earth '' without form and void," but he ^^ formed the 



Paul's answer to king agrippa. 197 

earth." Is there nothing essential to the earth in its 
form ? God '^formed man of the dust of the ground." Is 
his form essential? *^God formed every beast." His 
*^ hand formed the crooked serpent." Yea; he *^ formed 
all things " that were made. Things are distinguished by 
their forms. Jesus '^took upon him the form of a ser- 
vant " and was in the fashion of man. We have in the 
New Testament a '^form of doctrine," a " form of sound 
words," a *'form of godliness." True, a form without 
power, without life, without utility, without beauty, with- 
out anything but form would be only a form, " a mere 
form." But God has no such forms. Forms are neces- 
sary to power, and even to life itself. And so God has 
appointed that men shall be Christians in form — shall be- 
come Christians formally. 

By the way, that is just what's the matter. Presumptu- 
ous and ignorant men have deformed Christianity. They 
have deformed the very simple God-appointed form of 
becoming a Christian ; and with many the whole matter 
of becoming a Christian is ^Svithout form and void." 
Hence the confusion upon the subject, and the many 
Christians at heart who know not how to become Chris- 
tians formally and in fact. 

Yes. The confession of Christ, the good confession, is 
a form ; and baptism is a form, too ; and by making the 
confession and being baptized the believer formally be- 
comes a Christian. That's exactly it. Nor is this form 
unnecessary simply because it is a form. Tilings are dis- 
tinguished one from another by their forms. By this 
divinely appointed form we can sec persons become Cliris- 
tians, and believers can see themselves become Christians. 
Tlie Lord has made no unnecessary appoiutnuMits. A 
form may be just as necessary as anything without a form. 



198 SWEENEY*S SERMONS, 

Baptism is associated with faith and repentance, and sus- 
tains the same kind of relation to the body of Christ and 
salvation that they do. Let us see : In the commission, 
(Mark xvi. 16.) ''He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." Belief and baptism are associated by 
''and," and alike related to salvation. Peter in answer to 
the enquirers on that noted Pentecost, (Acts ii: 38.) said, 
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Here he asso- 
ciates repentance and baptism, and by the same word con- 
nects both with remission of sins. Again ; Paul so asso- 
ciates faith and baptism (Gal. iii: 26, 27.) in these words: 
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ." And all ^his notwith- 
standing baptism is a form. Associated with belief, and 
put in the same relation with it to salvation ; associated 
with repentance and put into the same relation with it to 
remission of sins ; associated with faith and made initiative 
to Christ, to his body, to his church ; and still baptism is 
a form The diiference between it and "mere" forms, 
needless forms, non-essential forms, is that it is God's 
form, while all "mere" forms are men's forms. When 
the Lord prescribes a form and puts upon it the "name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
"mere," or " needless," or "non-essential," is no proper 
adjunct for it. 

Some persons make much ado over the fact that in 
the Greek Scriptures persons are said to "believe mfo 
Christ;" and we are asked how that can be and yet 
persons be "baptized into Christ." Simple enough. 
Both expressions are Scripture, are they not? that is, both 
"believe into Christ" and "baptized into Christ." And 



PAULAS ANSWER TO KING AGRIPPA. 199 

if we believe one because it is Scripture we ought to be- 
lieve the other for the same reason, ought we not ? Both 
are true. I believe both. How can both be true ? Are 
persons initiated into Christ twice ? Once by belief and 
once by baptism ? Certainly not. Well, then, are some 
persons initiated into Christ by faith and others by 
baptism? Certainly not. How, then, can both state- 
ments be true — "believe into Christ," and ''baptized into 
Christ?" Why, because, as we have already seen, belief 
and baptism are associated in bringing sinners into Christ. 
The end, *' into Christ," may be predicated of both ; or it 
may be predicated of either one, Avhen that one is the sub- 
ject of the conversation, just as in case of the association 
of two or more men in the accomplishing of a given work. 
A person may be brought into court by the sheriff, the 
jailor, and a guard. The bringing of the man in may be 
predicated of either one of the officers named, if we are 
speaking of that officer and wish to magnify his office. 
Whether in strictness of speech it is correct or incorrect, it 
is a liberty taken by writers in all languages, and common- 
sense has no difficulty in the interpretation of it. 

A believer, then, is made a Christian formally by the 
divine form: that is, by confessing Jesus Christ with the 
mouth, and being baptized in his name. People generally 
have no difficulty in understanding this, and the necessity 
of it, in reference to anything else than Christianity. 
Take Free Masonry, for instance: Is one a Mason simply 
because his father was ? Is he already a Mason because 
he believes Masonry to be a good thing— because in his 
judgment he has decided in favor of it? Is lie a INfason 
in fact simply because he is a Mason at heart? JNIay not 
one be a Mason in judgment, and at heart, and yet not 
one in fact? And is it not true, that he is not a Mason 



200 Sweeney's sermons. 

in fact because he has not been formally made a Mason? 
because he has not taken the st&ps? because he has not 
been formally initiated? 

People have no difficulty in understanding this matter 
in case of American citizenship. Is a man an American 
citizen in fact just because he is in judgment, or even at 
heart ? Certainly not We all understand that. A for- 
eigner may be ever so thoroughly convinced of the great- 
ness of America, and of the advantages of American 
citizenship; and he may be an American at heart; but 
all this does not make him a citizen in fact. To be a 
citizen in fact he must be formally made one. 

We all understand this matter as it relates to contracts. 
Is a man a husband in fact because he has contracted mar- 
riage with a certain woman ? Certainly not. No matter 
how much he may love the woman, at heart ; and how well 
suited to be his wife he may believe her to be, he is not 
her husband until he is formally married to her. And, as 
I have said, this is true of becoming anything, or a mem^ 
ber of any order or association, or a citizen of any country, 
or subject of any government ; and yet some people seem 
to think that one can become a Christian, a member of 
the body of Christ, a subject of his kincrdom, in fact with- 
out any form ; and this, too, notwithstanding the divine 
form taught all through the New Testament, both by our 
Lord himself and by his apostles. One passage here from 
Paul, (Rom. vi : 17,) is too fitting to be parsed: ''Ye 
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which 
was delivered you ; being then made free from sin ye 
became the servants of righteousness." And it is almost 
impossible not to understand the apostle here by **that 
form of doctrine "to allude to what he had just before 
said : ''So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 



Paul's answer to king agrippa. 201 

were baptized into his death. Therefore we were buried 
with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life," (verses 3, 4.) Dr. 
Macknight says in his comment on this 17th verse. '*The 
original word, [translated form'] among other things, sig- 
nifies a mould into which melted metals are poured, to receive 
the form of the mould. The apostle represents the gos- 
pel doctrine as a mould into which the Romans were put 
by their baptism, in order to their being fashioned anew. 
And he thanks God, that from the heart, that is most 
willingly and sincerely, they had yielded to the forming 
efficacy of that mould of doctrine, and were made new 
men, both in principle and in practice.^' 

But let us notice in the next place, **Such as I am 
except these bonds." Paul was no mere Christian at 
heart — or in judgment and at heart. He was all that, and 
more. The point at issue, or point of difference, as to 
belief, between Paul prior to his conversion and the dis- 
ciples of Jesus, was one as to the resurrection of Jesus 
from the dead. When the Lord appeared to him on the 
way from Jerusalem to Damascus and he believed that it 
was really Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead and alive, 
the point of difference was decided against him at the bar 
of his own judgment ; and just like the brave and honest 
man he always was, he surrendered. There is often the 
grandest heroism in surrender. Paul at once acknowledged 
Jesus Lord, and asked what he would have him to do. 
Let him tell the story in his own style: ■* And I said, 
what shall I do, Lord ? And the Lord said unto me. 
Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told 
thee of all things wliich are appointed for tlun^ to do. And 
when I could not see ior the glory of that light, being led 



202 Sweeney's sermons. 

by the hand of them that were with me, I came into 
Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to 
the hiw, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt 
there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother 
Saul, receive thy sight ; and the same hour I looked up 
upon him. And he said, the God of our fathers hath 
chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see 
that just one, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth ; 
for thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou 
hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou ? Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." (Acts xxii: 10-16.) And in another 
account of his conversion we learn that when Ananias 
had so instructed him as to the things ^ * appointed " for 
him to do, Paul at once ** arose and was baptized." (Acts 
ix : 18.) And thus he, as he himself said, *'put on 
Christ." (Gal. iii : 27.) He was not the kind of man to 
be satisfied with being ^* almost " a Christian, with being a 
Christian in judgment, and at heart merely, Paul 
was an ** altogether" sort of man. Whatever he was, that 
he was ** altogether." When he became a Christian he 
became *^ altogether" one. And when he persuaded men 
to become Christians he persuaded them to become not 
only almost, but altogether such as he was, except his 
bonds. That is, he persuaded men to be Christians not 
merely in judgment and heart, but in fact — outwardly, 
openly, actually, formally, as well ; and both in the pro- 
fession and in the practice of Christianity. 

^'Persuadest me to be a Christian." Yaul persuaded 
men to be Christians. This he confessed in his answer to 
the king ; and this he taught elsewhere, both in his preach- 
ing to the sinner and in his epistles. He persuaded men. 
God doesn't persuade stones, rocks, or seas ; worlds, suns 



Paul's answer to king agrippa. 203 

or comets; but he persuades inen. He governs the world 
of matter by sheer force, or power; but not so men. He 
reasons with men ; persuades, exhorts, entreats, and 
warns men. While he rules the material universe, all 
worlds and suns, by his own almighty power, he stops at 
the door of man's heart, and knocks for admission. He 
says, (Kev. iii: 20.) *' Behold I stand at the door and 
knock ; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I 
will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with 
me." No divine violence here. God respects his own 
image in man. He will not break down the dignity of his 
own image even to save man from eternal ruin. Man is 
so wonderfully and fearfully made that he may choose sin 
and death here, and hell forever hereafter. If man's sal- 
vation were merely a question of divine power, or will, or 
sovereignty, as some suppose it is, there would be no sense 
in standing at the door of man's heart and knocking, or in 
reasoning with him. Persuading men would be mocking 
men. If man were the mere machine that popular theol- 
ogy w^ould have us believe that he is, utterly unable to be 
or do otherwise than God has decreed from all eternity 
that he should be and do, then all talk about sua- 
sion is nonsense. Why persuade men, if indeed they can 
do nothing but what God foreordained from all eternity 
that they should do, and are compelled to do that, just as 
the earth is to sweep round his circles? But God per- 
suades men, notwithstanding the jargon of the creeds that 
have come down to us from the darker ages. 

Again : Paul persuaded men to be Christians. Only 
Christians. His plea could be readily understood. The 
issue he made witli men was single and simple. To be or 
not to be a Christian ; that was it. I tliink it is to be 
regretted that it is not so now. There is sonu^ conlusion 



204 Sweeney's sermons. 

about the issue we are making with men now. We have 
questions about churches, denominations, parties ; and 
about creeds and ecclesiastical polities. The priests and 
preachers now have to do a good deal of persuading, argu- 
ing, and debating about matters of difference in their 
creeds and churches ; and when they get men persuaded 
to be Christians their work is only fairly begun. Many 
men are to-day standing out in the world, never having 
made any kind of public confession of Jesus, although 
entirely willing and anxious to be Christians — because 
they are confused by the many creeds and churches we 
have in the world, whose claims are being pressed upon 
people, more than the simple story of Jesus and his love. 
This ought not to be. There have been very grave mis- 
takes made by somebody, since PauFs time ; so that the 
simple issue he made with men has been almost lost sight 
of in the wars of churches and conflicts of creeds. If 
Paul was right we have got wrong ; and have brought 
upon ourselves unnecessary labor and trouble. How shall 
we go about getting right again ? I can see but one way : 
Let the creeds and the parties they have made go. Let 
them go entirely. We shall not make the difficulties less 
by trying to alter and amend them, and adjust them to 
our advanced civilization. Let them go. Then let us 
persuade men to believe in Jesus, and confess Jesus, and 
put on Jesus in his own simple and appointed way, and to 
walk in Jesus; and be simply ChrUtiaiis. Men can be 
Christians without the creeds and parties of our day — 
Christians such as Paul was, except his ** bonds." We 
have no need of the bonds with which men bound Paul ; 
nor of the *' bonds" with which men have sought to bind 
all the children of God. Let all the bonds go! 

Finally. With Paul, it was not enough simply to 



Paul's answer to king agkippa. 205 

become a Christian — a Christian in belief, in heart, and 
in fact — to be saved, and to feel happy, and be taken to 
heaven on flowery beds of ease. No, no! With him, to 
become a Christian was to become a soldier ; and having 
enlisted, to fight the good fight of faith ; to fight on until 
death should release him. Hear him : ''So fight I, not as 
one that beateth the air ; but I keep under my body, and 
bring it into subjection ; lest that by any means, when I 
have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away " 
(1 Cor. ix : 26, 27.) Again, near the close of his earthly 
career: '' I have fought a good fight, I have finished my 
course, I have kept the faith ; henceforth there is laid up 
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the 
righteous judge shall give me at that day ; and not to me 
only, but unto all them also which love his appearing." 
(2 Tim. iv: 7, 8.) And to those left behind he says: 
'* Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, 
whereunto thou art called, and hast professed a good pro- 
fession before many witnesses." Let us try to be Chris- 
tians such as Paul was. 

*'I would to God that not only thou, but also all that 
hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such 
as I am, except these bonds." 



SERMON X. 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 

IN the history of baptism a great many questions have 
come up for discussion concerning it, three of which have 
assumed considerable importance and attracted consider- 
able attention. 

1 What is baptism as to action ? In other words, what 
is the act performed in baptizing a person ? 

2 Who may be scripturally baptized? This we call the 
question as to the proper subject of baptism, and involves 
what is called infant baptism. 

3 What is the scriptural design of baptism ? In other 
words what are proper persons baptized for? 

I propose in this discourse to confine myself to the first 
of these three questions. What is the proper action of 
baptism? It is a matter of general knowledge that there 
are three difierent actions performed and called baptizing ; 
immersion, pouring and sprinkling. In the discussion of 
this question, there are three sources of proof resorted to 
by Protestants— Catholics generally have no use for proof 
—the philological, the scriptural and the historical. The first 
relates to the meaning of the word baptize, the second to 
the scripture use of it, and the third to the history of the 
ordmance. I propose in this discourse to confine myself 
mainly to the scripture argument, and the text shall be: 
'' I indeed baptize you with water" — (Matt, iii : 11.) 

I have selected this passage to begin with because I believe 
(206) 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 207 

it is more generally relied on by the masses of those who 
believe in pouring and sprinkling for baptism than any 
other passage in the Bible. They believe that '* baptize 
you with water" implies the application of the water to the 
subject, and that pouring and sprinkling being such an 
application, it a-nswers the demands of this passage better 
than immersion does. Of course the better educated 
among the advocates of aspersion do not so much rely on 
the argument drawn from this passage for the satisfaction 
of their own minds as on some others. The masses 
rely on it, and the better educated use it among the 
masses. This is no reflection upon the educated. At least, 
I do not mean it as such. It is legitimate and proper in 
advocating what one believes to be true to use such argu- 
ments in its support as are deemed best suited to those 
sought to be convinced, though one may not himself rely 
upon them with most confidence for the satisfaction of his 
own mind. And the reason that the argument derived 
from this passage is not and cannot be so forceful with the 
scholarly as with the uneducated is that every schohir 
knows that the passage might just as well if not better be 
transhited ''baptize you in water;" and, of course, that 
takes all the force out of it. In this discourse, however, I 
propose to address myself mainly to English speaking peo- 
ple who believe in pouring and sprinkling ; and I i)ropose 
to admit everything that any one can possibly claim as to 
the translation of our passage. But before proceeding 
with the argument on that line, justice demands, it seems 
to me, — justice both to the truth and to those I am 
to address — that I should make two or three state- 
ments. 

1 The preposition translated irifh in the passngo occurs 
nine times in this same cha})ter, and is in the common 



208 SWEENEY S SERMONS. 

version of the scriptures six times translated in,' once 
within, and twice ivitk It is translated with only in the 
text — '' with water and with the Holy Ghost." Let us run 
through the chapter and note its occurrences. It occurs 
twice in the hrst verse in the phrases, ''in those days/' 
and " in the wilderness ; " once in the third verse, in the 
phrase, ''in the wilderness;" once in the sixth verse in 
the phrase, " baptized of him in Jordan ; " once in the 
ninth verse in the phrase, " say ivithin yourselves; " twice 
in the eleventh verse in the phrases, " ivith water and with 
the Holy Ghost ; " once in the twelfth verse in the phrase, 
'' whose fan is in his hand ; " and once in the last verse in 
the phrase, "in whom I am well pleased." Such is the 
use of this preposition in this one chaptero Comment is 
not needed or intended, but simply a statement of the fact. 

2. A second fact is that the revised New Testament, 
while it has ^Svith" in the text, following the common 
version here as elsewhere as nearly as possible, has ''in" 
in the margin ; thereby recognizing that as a good trans- 
lation, if not the best. Thus we have all the weight of 
scholarship represented by the revised New Testament for 
saying that the text might very well be translated, " bap- 
tize you in water." 

3 A third fact is, that the American committee of 
revisers, of the revised New Testament, preferred and had 
their preference recorded, that in our passage in should 
go into the text and * ' with " in the margin. And thus 
we have the weight of scholarship represented by the Amer- 
ican committee of revisers for saying that our text might 
better be translated, " baptize you in water." Now, these 
facts comprise in part my reason for saying that the argu- 
ment derived from this passage for aspersion cannot be so 
forceful in the estimation of the educated as in that of the 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 209 

mere Englisl^ reader. Do not the facts justify the state- 
ment? Can the argument stand for as much with those 
who know the facts I have stated as with those who are 
ignorant of them ? Certainly not. 

I have thought it just that I should make these statements 
before making the argument I propose to make in this 
discourse, as I propose to admit, for the sake of the argu- 
ment, so to speak, the correctness of the translation in the 
common version. I propose to admit, though not com- 
pelled to do so, and though I do not believe it, that '' with 
water" is a better translation than ^^in water" would be. 
Yea ; I will go further, and admit more than any scholar 
will claim; that is, not only that 'Svith water" is the better 
translation, but that it is a necessary one ; that it is the 
only correct one. Of course I do not believe this is so, as 
no even moderately well informed person can ; but I make 
the admission that my argument, which is intended for the 
English reader particularly, may be seen to be entirely 
fair, and have its full force. 

Then let it be understood that I make the unnecessary 
admission that there is no question about the correctness 
of the translation of the text. 

*'I indeed baptize you ivith water." Now, may 
not the passage be as fairly interpreted of immer- 
sion as of aspersion ? That's the question to which 
we will give attention in the first place : that is to say ; 
we shall examine the passage by itself — without refer- 
ence to other scriptures bearing upon the subject — and see 
if there really is anything in it that fiivors pouring or 
sprinkling. Does baptize ivith water imply an application 
of the water to the subject, as the argument for aspersion 
always assumes. In fact, this assumption is all there is of 
the'argumcnt ; and if it is sho>vn to be false there will be 
14 



210 Sweeney's- sermons. 

absolutely nothing of the argument left; not even frag- 
ments. Any one can see that the assumption and the 
argument are exactly the same. 

I deny that there is anything whatever in the phrase, 
*^ baptize ivith water" that implies the application of the 
water to the subject. That, of course, puts me in the neg- 
ative. And being in the negative, I have a right to 
demand the proof that with water implies an application 
of the water. I have a right to require of him who holds 
that it does to show hoiv it does. On the other hand, I 
contend that *' baptize with water" can be just as fairly 
interpreted of putting the subject into the water as of put- 
ting the water upon the subject. If I can hold this ground 
the argument will disappear. 

Now, the only attempt I have ever seen or heard made 
by the advocates of pouring and sprinkling to prove that 
with water implies an application of the water, was by 
illustrations. I do not disparage illustrations. I like them, 
when they are apt and fair. For the only legitimate pur- 
pose they can serve they are good. To the field of illus- 
tration, then, let us go for a while. And first we will 
notice the illustrations that have been used to press our 
passage into the service of pouring and sprinkling. Here 
they are : ''The woodman felled the tree with an axe." 
** The master whipped the boy with a switch." In the 
first place, all possible emphasis must be put upon icith in 
these illustrations. That's important. Very well ; let the 
emphasis go on. What next ? Why, next, the advocate 
of aspersion has only to ask, with an air of ti'iumph all 
over his face, " Was the tree applied to the axe, or the 
axe to the tree ? Was the boy applied to the switch, or 
the switch to the boy ? " Well, of course, the axe was 
applied to the tree, and the switch to the boy. Every 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 211 

body will admit this. And with willing souls the case is 
made out. But what about the illustrations that have per- 
formed so important a part in the argument ? Why, they 
are simply fraudful. That's what. Every time any one 
uses these illustrations, as in this case, he perpetrates a 
gross fraud. Let us see if this can be made oat. If so, a 
fallacy will be exposed which has deceived many souls ; 
many now in the world, and many that have passed over 
the river ; a popular fallacy of long standing. Illustra- 
tions that do not fairly illustrate generally misrepresent. 
But wherein are these illustrations unfair and fraudful ? 
Let us see. What is the phrase they are and have been 
used to illustrate ? Let us examine that a little more 
analytically. *^ I indeed baptize you with water." That's 
the phrase. Now, water is the object of with, and the 
element of baptize. This cannot be disputed. How^ever it 
may be used, whether by applying it to the subject or by 
enveloping the subject in it, water is the element of the 
baptism. And water is a liquid element, too, it is impor- 
tant to note. It is possible to apply a liquid element to 
an object, and it is also possible to put an object into a 
liquid element. This will hardly be denied. In the 
phrase, ^' baptize you with water," the element being liquid 
may be poured, sprinkled, or dipped into. As for any 
thing there is in the nature of the element either one of 
these actions is possible. But in the illustrations, "felled 
the tree with an axe," and " wliipped the boy with a 
switch," there is no such element and no such possibility. 
In the very nature of the case, in the nature of a tree 
and an axe, the tree could not be put into the axe ; 
in the nature of a boy and a switch, the boy cannot 
be put into the switch ; and therefore the illustra- 
tions are unfair and fraudful. Thoy juit an axo and a 



212 

switch, both solid substances, in the place of water, a 

liquid element. While it is possible to dip ''you "into 

water, it is impossible to puc a " tree'' into an axe, or a 

" 60^ " into a swatch ! Hence the fraud. We have but 

to lay these illustrations along side of the phrase they are 

brought to illustrate and the fraud will glare in our faces. 

Let us see : 

Baptize you with ivater. 
Fell a tree with an axe. 

It is possible to put you into water, but impossible to 
put a tree into an axe. The same is true of whipped the 
boy with a switch. But it will help us to see the gross 
unfairness of these illustrations by contrasting them with a 
few that are manifestly fair. Let us try that method a 
little anyhow. 

The smith cools his iron icith water. The smith hardens 
his iron with water. The laundress washes her kerchief ivith 
water. In these illustrations w^e have the liquid element, 
as in the phrase illustrated ; and we also have it possible 
to use the water by application or by being plunged into. 
It is possible for the smith to cool or harden his iron with 
water, either by applying the water to the iron or by put- 
ting the iron into water. So it is possible for the laundress 
to wash a kerchief either by putting the water on the ker- 
chief or by putting the kerchief into the water. Hence 
the fairness of these illustrations is as obvious as the fraud- 
ulency of the others. 

Now; in these obviously fair illustrations — cools the 
iron with water, hardens the iron with water, washes the 
kerchief with water — does '' loith water "necessarily imply 
an application of the water ? Because it is said that the 
smith cools or hardens his iron icith water, does it follow as 
a necessity that he does it by applying the water to the iron ? 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 213 

Hardly. Because it is said that the laundress washes her 
kerchief with water, does it follow necessarily that she does 
it by applying the water to it ? If a man wets his finger 
with water, does it follow that he does it by application of 
water ? Hardly. In fact, is not immersion or dipping 
more usual in all these cases? It certainly is. But I am 
not trying to prove immersion by these illustrations. 
What then ? Why, simply this : 

That '^ with water" does not imply an application of 
water in baptism as the advocates of pouring and sprink- 
ling argue and attempt to prove by fraudful illustrations. 
I do not claim any thing in favor of immersion from the 
expression ^^ with water.'' Let that be understood. I 
only claim that there is nothing in it that implies asper- 
sion. An article may be washed with water, or cooled 
with water, or hardened with water, or wet with 
water just as well, and it occurs just as frequently, 
by being put into water as by an application of it, as I 
have shown by fair illustrations. Just so with the phrase, 
''baptize you with water;" it may be interpreted of 
immersion just as well as of aspersion. There is certainly 
nothing in the v/ord '' baptize," or the pronoun ''you," to 
Aveigli against my argument. Indeed, if we go into a dis- 
cussion of the meaning of baptize it will result in favor of 
the argument against pouring and sprinkling. But that is 
not within my purpose in this discourse. 

Inasmuch, then, as "with water" does not of itself 
determine how Jolni baptized with wntcr, whether l)y 
immersing the people in it or by pouring or sprinkling it 
upon them, have we any other means by which wo 
may determine the question? Are there any fact^' or cir- 
cumstances given in the scriptures that will help us to a 
safe conclusion in the case? I am aware that the meauiug 



214 Sweeney's sermons. 

of the word baptize of itself settles this question to the sat- 
isfaction of all immersionists ; but I am not trying to con- 
vince such. I am reasoning with, and mainly for, honest 
people w^ho believe in pouring and sprinkling for baptism. 
And still more particularly such as understand only the 
English language. I repeat the question, then, have we 
any other means than the expression ''with water," within 
the reach of common people, by which to determine how 
John used water in baptizing ? I think we have. But 
before proceeding to notice such other means, I want to 
call attention to what I consider an important rule of 
interpretation. For in interpreting scriptures, sacred or pro- 
fane, we must be governed by sound rules, if we w^ould 
reach safe conclusions. 

In our interpretations of the scriptures, then, I submit, 
that every passage speaking on any subject should, if pos- 
sible, be so interpreted as to harmonize with every other 
passage speaking on the same subject. This means fair- 
ness and friendliness in dealing with the word of God. It 
is a method by which certainly all the friends of the 
scriptures ought willingly to be governed in their 
interpretation. I have said this means friendliness. 
Let us suppose, for illustration, that one is interpreting a 
letter from a friend There is in it a doubtful expression ; 
tbat is, an expression susceptible, in itself considered, of 
different constructions ; one construction of this doubtful 
expression makes it harmonize with everything else in the 
letter ; another possible construction makes it contradict, 
or at the least renders it inconsistent with other statements 
in the letter ; which construction would feiruess and 
friendship require ? Which method would fairness and 
friendliness suggest ? the harmonious or the inharmonious 
one ? Most of us — all of us I shall presume to say — in 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 215 

the case supposed would adopt the friendly method. We ^ 
would not feel at liberty, or even disposed, to put a possi- 
ble construction upon a doubtful expression in the letter 
of our friend, that would make him contradict himself, or 
even make his statements inconsistent, if we could find a 
possible construction for such doubtful phrase that would 
allow the letter to speak the truth only, and be consistent 
throughout. An enemy might adopt a different method. 
If he wished to convict the writer of unfaithfulness to 
facts, or of inconsistency, he would be likely to prefer any 
possible meaning of a doubtful clause, that would throw 
it out of harmony with other statements in the letter — 
that is, if the enemy was not very conscientious. 

Now this friendliness is what I ask in construing the 
language of scripture, of its friends, of Christian people. 
This is the meaning of the rule I have submitted. Let us 
give to the unscrupulous enemies of the scriptures the 
exclusive use of the unfriendly method of interpretation. 

Now let us take our phrase — ''baptize you with water" 
— through the New Testament. We have seen that it 
may be interpreted of either immersion or aspersion, for 
aught there is in the expression, '' with water." Let us now 
see which interpretation better harmonizes with all that is 
said upon the subject in other places in the New Testa- 
ment. 

We will not give much emphasis to the fact that when 
the time came for John to begin his work of baptizing peo- 
ple with water he came from the '' hill country of Judea" 
to the Jordan for the puri)ose : *' In those days came John 
the Baptist." Why " came" he to the river Jordan to 
baptize with water? Well; we may not know. Wo only 
mention the fact to begin with, without spending much 
time on it. Nor need we attach any great importance to 



216 Sweeney's sermons. 

the circumstance that John wore camel's hair raiment, 
and was supported about the loins with a leather girdle, 
^vhile he was baptizing with water. This may have been 
a mere circumstance of taste, convenience, or something 
else — it matters not. We will not spend time on it. 

When John came into the wilderness through which 
the Jordan ran, dressed as we have briefly noticed, to 
preach and to baptize people with water, we learn that, 
'' then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and 
all the region round about Jordan, and were all baptized 
of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt, iii : 5, 6.) 
In Jordan ! Now, Jordan is a river. John came out of 
the hill country of Judea to Jordan to preach, and to bap- 
tize with water ; and the people went out and were ** bap- 
tized of him in the river of Jordan." And we learn fur- 
ther, that " Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was 
baptized of John in Jordan ; and straightway coming up 
out of the water, he saw the heavens opened," etc. (Mark 
i: 9, 10.) Among others John baptized our Lord with 
water. It was done in the river of Jordan, and after the 
baptism our Savior came up out of the water. These facts 
ought to weigh something in our enquiry. If John bap- 
tized with water by sprinkling only a few drops of it upon 
the people, why come out of the hill country to Jordan to 
do it? Why baptize in the river "^ Where was the neces- 
sity or the sense of our Lord after being baptized with 
water by having a few drops sprinkled upon him, having 
to come up out oj the water ? Do not these facts and cir- 
cumstances look rather like John baptized with water by 
putting the people into the water? But lei us not haste 
to a conclusion. The truth sometimes travels slowly, but 
it always gets there. 

But John did not do all his baptizing with water in Jor- 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 217 

dan. For, later, we are told that, '' John also was bap- 
tizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much 
water there ; and they came and were baptized." (John 
iii: 23.) Dean Alford says that " Enon is an intentitive 
form of Ain, a fountain, which answers to the description 
here given." If he is right, "John was baptizing in a 
fountain near to Salim, because there was much water 
there." Baj)tizing in a fountain, and because there was 
much water there, is a fact with a reason for it, that, it 
seems to me, ought to have an important bearing upon 
the question as to how John baptized with water. It 
seems hardly probable that John would pour or sprinkle 
people in a fountain of much water. Nor is much water 
a necessity for pouring or sprinkling. But such a place, 
a fountain of much water, would be eminently suitable for 
immersing. Let it be observed, then, that John was bap- 
tizing in a fountain, if Dean Alford is right as to the mean- 
ing of Enon. And whether he is right or wrong about 
that, John was baptizing there because there was much 
water there. The fact that there was much water 
there is given as the reason why John was baptizing 
there ; and not, as has been said by way of evasion of the 
significance of the fact, holding meeting there because 
there was plenty of water. When John baptized with 
water it was in the river Jordan, or elsewhere because 
there was much water there. A river, or much water, is a 
necessity for immersing, but not for pouring or sprinkling. 
It is generally conceded, I believe, that as to the action 
performed, there was no difference between John's baptism 
and what we call Christian baptism — that isj the baptism 
performed by the disciples after the great commission was 
given^ by our Lord. So that it will be legitimato ior us 
in pursuing our cn(|uiry to notice some of the facts and cir- 



218 Sweeney's sermons. 

cumstances attending the performance of this rite recorded 
in Acts of xlpostles, as well as allusions to it in 
the epistles. In many instances where baptizing was 
done by apostles only the fact is recorded, and nothing 
is said that throws any light whatever upon the matter of 
our enquiry, more than is in the word baptize itself, and 
that is not within the scope of this argument. In other 
instances, however, facts and circumstances are recorded 
that I think both pertinent and potent. Let us notice the 
case of the baptism of the Ethiopian officer, by Philip, the 
evangelist, recorded in Acts viii: 3(5-39. *' And as they 
went on their way, they came unto a certain water ; and 
the eunuch said, See, here is water : what doth hinder me 
to be baptized ? . . . And he commanded the chariot 
to stand still : and they went down both into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And 
when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of 
the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no 
more." 

In this case we have remarkably minute circumstan- 
tiality. 

1. ^^They came unto a certain water." Not simply 
unto water ; but unto a cei-tain water. That would in- 
dicate, at least to a willing mind, that it was a somewhat 
known water. The word '* certain'' in the scriptures, and 
especially in the writings of Luke, is not infrequently 
used of distinguished persons, or well-known things — as, 
for instance, a ^^ coiain man in Cesarea, called Cornelius," 
(Acts x: 1.) ''a ceiia'in rich man," and *'a ceiiain beg- 
gar," (Luke xvi.) ''certain days" — ''ceiiain questions" etc. 
Thus indicating distinguished persons, well-known days 
and questions. They came to a certain water; that is, 
most likely, a well-known water on that road. 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 219 

2. ''They went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch." It is not said simply that they went 
into the water; but they went down into the water — down 
mto the water ; both Philip and the eunuch. Then follow- 
ing the statement that ''he baptized him/' 

3. We have, "when they were come up out of the 
water." Not simply were come out of the water; but up 
out of the water. 

It has been said that the going down and the coming 
up, in this case, refer to the chariot in which they were 
riding. But who cannot see that the going down and the 
coming up both have reference to the water? Are not 
both connected with the water, by "into" in the one case 
and " out of" in the other? Besides, there is no evidence 
that Philip ever went back into the chariot. The proba- 
bility is that he did not. The fact is, it is almost impos- 
sible to put any other construction upon the words of this 
passage than the literal and natural one. And it would 
seem from the narrative that in order to baptize with 
water, in this case at least, both th-e preacher and the sub- 
ject went down into the water, and, consequently, when 
the baptizing had been done, had both to come up out of 
the water. Now, how does it seem most likely that 
Philip baptized with water? Had he done so by applying 
a few drops to the subject, then there would have been no 
necessity, no reason, for the circumstances of the case, so 
minutely given. On the otlier hand immersion requires 
exactly the circumstances here given. It is hardly worth 
while to ask which interpretation of "baptize with water" 
answers the demands of (his scripture. One makes it 
altogether sensible ; the other knocks all the sense out 
of it. 

Let us notice another case give^i in Acts xvi : o2-o4. 



220 Sweeney's sermons. 

the baptism of the jailor at Philippi : *'And they spake 
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
house. And he took them the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway. And when he had brought them into his 
house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
God with all his house." Let us note here these facts : 

1. When Paul and Silas preached to this jailor they 
'^ were in his house," he having before ''brought them 
out" of the inner prison where they were when the earth- 
quake occurred, (verse 30.) 

2. After they spake unto him the word of the Lord, 
and to all that were in his house, ''he took them the same 
hour of the night, and . . was baptized." He "took" 
them somewhere, just where the record does not say. 
Then after he was baptized, we learn that 

3. " He brought them into his house." This, of course, 
he could not have done had he not taken them out of his 
house when he "took them" and was baptized. 

4. Remember, this occurred some time after midnight. 
Now this man was the prison keeper in a large city. It 

is only reasonable to suppose he had within the prison a 
good many prisoners ; just how many we may not know. 
But we learn that when Paul and Silas prayed and sang, 
" the prisoners heard them." (v 25.) Then there were 
"all his," or " all that were in his house ; " say his family, 
if you wish : and say at least one infant if you choose : 
and was there not enough water in the house to baptize 
the jailor and all his "with water," by pouring or sprink- 
ling a few drops upon each one? A most unreasonable 
supposition I 

5. The Revised Version, Dean Alford, Wesley and 
others, read the thirty -fourth verse, "brought them up 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 221 

into his house." This being correct, as no doubt it is, the 
jailor not only took them out of his house, but took them 
down somewhere. Down where? Just where we may 
not know. But we do know that there was a river by the 
city, (verse 13.) And we know also that cities having 
both rivers and prisons have their prisons higher than the 
rivers at ordinary stages of water ; and usually for obvi- 
ous reasons, have them pretty close together. Then it is 
by no means a violent assumption that he took them 
down to the river, and when he was baptized, brought 
them up into his house. Anyhow he took them some- 
where, just after midnight, and when he was baptized, he 
brought them up into his house. How, then, was the jailor 
most likely baptized with water? Do the circumstances 
of the case point to pouring or sprinkling ? Surely not. 

In the next place let us notice some allusions to baptism 
in Paul's Epistles that have a bearing upon our inquiry. 
He says: (Romans vi: 3, 4.) *^0r are ye ignorant that 
all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized 
into his death. We were buried therefore with him 
through baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised 
from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also 
might walk in newness of life." Again he says: (Col. ii: 
11, 12.) *^In whom ye were circumcised with the cir- 
cumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the 
body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having 
been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also were 
raised with him through faith in the working of God, who 
raised him from the dead." 

I am aware that controversialists have, after ages (^f 
heated controversy, contrived ingenious interpretations of 
these plain allusions to baptism, that leave the baptism out 
altogether ; and that may possibly satisfy their own con- 



222 Sweeney's sermons. 

sciences, though their practice is directly in the teeth of 
these phiin passages as long as they remain untinkered. 
But we should bear in mind that the Koman and Colos- 
sian disciples to whom these epistles were addressed, knew 
nothing of these cunning explanations of the labt century, 
and would understand the apostle to allude to their bap- 
tism : and if their baptism was a mere pouring or sprink- 
ling, the allusions would have neither force nor sense in 
them. And the apostle would know this, too, as well as 
we ought to know it. 

Kow, we have seen that John ** baptized in Jordan;" 
*^ in the river Jordan;" **in a fountain near to Salim, be- 
cause there was much water there;" that our Savior 
'' came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John 
in Jordan, and straightway coming up out of the water" 
etc., and that later, under the gospel commission, the 
preacher and the person to be baptized, '' went down both 
into the water," for the purpose ; and that after the baptism, 
they *'came up out of the water ; " and that the Apostle 
Paul said to the disciples at Rome: ''All we who were 
baptized into Christ Jesus — were buried therefore with him 
through baptism ; " and to the Colossians, ** having been 
buried with him in baptism, wherein, ye were also raised 
with him ; " what, I ask, shall be our conclusion as to how 
persons were baptized with water ? Which of the two in- 
terpretations of *'with water" — both equally possible so 
far as the mere words of the phrase are concerned, as we 
saw in the beginning — better harmonizes with all the facts, 
circumstances and allusions, to which we have given at- 
tention ? Is it not a fact that one interpretation requires 
us to explain away all the facts, circumstances and al- 
lusions, while the other perfectly accords with them all? 

Some cases of baptism recorded in Acts of Apostles have 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 223 

been supposed to favor pouring and sprinkling, and to 
these let us give attention in conclusion. 

It has been generally assumed that three thousand per- 
sons were baptized on the day of Pentecost ; and it has 
been urged that so many could not have been immersed 
by the few disciples that were there, in only a part of a 
day. This has, by many, been supposed to be conclusive 
against immersion, at least on that occasion. The case 
deserves attention. 

1. In the first place, there is no proof that so many 
persons were baptized on that occasion. The record does 
not say how many were baptized on that day. It says, 
*Hhey that gladly received his [Peter's] word were bap- 
tized;" and it adds, '^ and the same day there were added 
about three thousand souls." ''Unto them" is not in the 
text, but was supplied by the translators. The text simply 
says, ''there were added about thr e thousand souls." 
Three thousand souls added means simply three thousand 
muls joined together ; that is, a congregation of three thous- 
and souls was constituted that day. How many of the 
three thousand were baptized that day, and how many had 
been baptized before, nobody knows. This, however, is 
important only as correctness is always important. The 
argument against immersion on that day can be answered 
without it. 

2. Allowing, then, that three thousand persons were 
baptized that day, which, as I have said, cannot be shown ; 
and allowing that only "ordained" preachers officiated; 
the work could have been done in a very short time. 
Jesus during his personal ministry ordained eighty-two 
preachers, twelve at one time and seventy at another, and 
they were likely all at Jerusalem on that occasion but 
Judas, and his place had been filled by Matthias. Three 



224 Sweeney's sermons, 

thousand would only be a fraction over thirty-six souls 
apiece to the ordained preachers present. And the bap- 
tizing could have been done in thirty-six minutes. That's 
no extraordinary work. 

And even allowing that only the twelve oflSciated in 
baptizing, they could have done the work easily in less 
than five hours. So that there was force enough to do the 
work in the time. And that there was an abundance of 
accessible water for the purpose has been shown to all who 
are willing to see, over and over again. The assumption 
we sometimes meet, that the Jews would have objected to 
the disciples using the public pools of Jerusalem is ex- 
ploded by the fact that up to this time and later the dis- 
ciples had *^ favor with all the people." Acts ii : 47. 

It has been said that Paul was baptized in a house, and 
therefore more likely poured or sprinkled than immersed. 
The proof offered that he was baptized in a house is that 
he was told to ^' arise and be baptized," (Acts xxii: 16.) 
and that it is said he *' arose and was baptized," (ibid, ix: 
18.) nothing being said about his going out of the room 
where he was when the preacher came to him.' 

Now, this argument can be convincing only to a very 
willing soul. Does it really follow that Paul did not go 
out of the room where he was, when Ananias came to him, 
to be baptized, simply because it is not recorded that he 
did? Suppose we read that a man '* arose and ate his 
breakfast ; " shall we conclude that he did so in the room 
where he slept, standing upright in bed, because the 
record of the case says nothing of his going out of the 
room or even getting off the bed ? Well, the cases are 
alike ; and if the latter is not quite a demonstration, 
neither is the former. 

It has been said that the word translated ^' arise" in the 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 225 

passage means " standing;" and that therefore Paul was 
commanded to be baptized standing. And as he could 
not be immersed standing, he must therefore have been 
poured oi sprinkled. A sufficient reply to this — if it really 
deserves any — is that the word translated arise in the pas- 
sage does not mean standing, as the alleged argument as- 
sumes. It means simply arise, and there is nothing in it 
to hinder the person so commanded from immediately 
walking off. 

The truth is, if there is anything in the fact that Paul 
was told to ''arise and be baptized," bearing upon the 
question as to the action of baptism, it is against pouring 
and sprinkling. For if Paul was in a room, lying or sit- 
ting down, he could not be immersed without arising ; but 
he could have been poured or sprinkled either lying or 
sitting just as well as standing. 

Besides, it ought to stand for something in this argu- 
ment that Paul himself said that when he was baptized he 
was buried. (Rom. vi: 4.) ''We w^ere buried with him 
by baptism." 

The advocates of pouring or sprinkling have tried to 
infer something favorable to their practice from the lan- 
guage of the apostle Peter at the house of Cornelius. 
'*Can any man forbid water that these should not be bap- 
tized : " It is claimed that by ''forbid water" the apostle 
meant '* forbid water to be brought for baptizing." But 
when we consider the fact that one might just as well and 
as easily forbid going to water to baptize as bringing water 
for that purpose, the supposed argument for pouring or 
sprinkling falls to pieces. There is nothing in the passage 
about either bringing or going to water. It simply says can 
any man forbid water — that's all. Shall an assvmption 
here that the apostle had reference to bringing water, be 



226 SWEENEY'S SERMONS. 

made to over-ride all the plain facts, circumstances, and 
allusions to which we have given attention, to say nothing 
of the meaning of the word baptize ? That would be 
giving to a transparent assumption a good deal of power. 

Some persons may wish to know why I do not in this 
discourse give attention to the argument for pouring 
drawn from what is called Holy Ghost baptism. 

AVell, it does not belong here. T\Tiatever the baptism 
with or in the Holy Spirit may mean, it clearly is not a 
case of baptism with water, and hence has no place in this 
inquiry. It belongs to the philological argument — to the 
discussion as to the meaning of the word baptize, and will 
be noticed in a discourse on that subject. 

Let us conclude this discourse with an illustration, a fair 
illustration. We will suppose a case for the illustration. 
We will suppose that Mr. A., of Paris, Ky., leaves his home 
for a protracted stay in Xew York. After an absence of 
a year or two he receives a letter from his friend B, of 
Paris. Among other matters his friend B. writes him con- 
cernino- a relio:ious revival in and around Paris. He tells 
of a preacher that had been preaching in the country 
through which Stoner — a stream with which they are both 
well acquainted — runs ; that he baptized with water ; and 
that the people came out of the country round and out of 
Paris, in large numbers, and were baptized by him in 
Stoner — in the river Stoner. He tells also of a distin- 
guished gentleman who came a considerable distance and 
was baptized by the preacher in the river Stoner; and 
that straightway coming up out of the water he returned 
home. He tells also of this same preacher, later, baptiz- 
ing in a reservoir or fountain near Lexington, because 
there was much water there. He tells also of another 
preacher who had fallen into the good work ; and that 



ACTION OF BAPTISM. 227 

on the way from Paris to Maysville he had fallen in with 
a somewhat distinguished gentleman in his carriage, and 
that he rode with him and preached to him Jesus on the 
way ; that they came to a certain w^ater ; that the gentleman 
said, see, here is water : what doth hinder me to be baptized. 
The carriage was stopped ; and thej both went down into 
the water, both the preacher and the gentleman ; and he 
baptized him ; and when they were come up out of the 
water, they parted and met no more. He tells, also, that 
all who were baptized into Christ Jesus w^ere buried with 
him in baptism ; wherein they were also raised w^ith him. 
Now, the question is, how would Mr. A. interpret the 
letter of his frieud B? What kind of a preacher — what 
kind of preachers — would Mr. A. conclude his friend B. 
had written about ? Would he interpret all the facts, and 
circumstances, and explanations of B's letter of pouring or 
sprinkling? Would any of us so interpret such a letter 
from a friend ? I think not. Well, ought we not be as 
fair, and as honest with the word of God as we would 
with the letter of a friend ? Most assuredly we ought. 
God help us. 



SERMON XI. 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 

WE should endeavor to avoid extremes. There is a 
manifest proneness among men, and especially 
men of earnest natures, to go to extremes upon all subjects. 
This has been quite conspicuously developed in the differ- 
ent theories of the importance of baptism. My brethren 
are supposed to hold an extreme position on this question ; 
at least, they are frequently so represented, and this 
should admonish them to be cautious. 

It Avill be generally admitted that baptism is an ordi- 
nance of the New Testament, and that the recorded teach- 
ings of Jesus and his inspired apostles are the only author- 
itative teachings upon the subject. Whoever cleaves 
closest to these is the most conservative. 

Jesus came into this world to be the teacher and exem- 
plar of men in religious matters. We shall do well, there- 
fore, to consult him first in our inquiry into this subject. 
In entering upon his public ministry, we have this brief 
record of him: ^* Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to 
Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John for- 
bade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, 
and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering said unto 
him. Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to 
fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And 
Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of 
the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, 
and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and 
(228) 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 229 

lighting upon him. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
(Matt, iii: 13-17.) 

Now, from this Scripture, we may learn several facts of 
some significance. Jesus was baptized at the threshold of 
his personal ministry ; before the Spirit of God descended 
upon him ; before the Father said, ^^This is my beloved 
Son in whom I am well pleased." Here we have his 
example. 

Now let us have his teaching as to baptism. In John 
iii : 3-5, he said to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews : 
^^ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born 
again he can not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus 
saith unto him, how can a man be born when he is old? 
Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and 
be born ? Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God." 

It Is hardly worth while to argue at any length that 
'*born of water" here means to be baptized. It has only 
recently been called in question ; and, even now, those 
who question this meaning do so generally in controversy. 
Men can do some very strange things, in the way of 
exegesis, when hard pressed In controversy, and great 
allowance Is to be made for them. Dean Alford, one of 
the best, and by many esteemed the very best, of modern 
critics, says: ''There can be no doubt, on any Iwned 
Interpretation of the words, that Ho be born of water' 
refers to the token, or outward sign, of baptism." Jesus 
here teaches, then, beyond any reasonable doubt that to 
enter the kingdom of God, and become a child of God, 
(me must be baptized. This accords witli the example 
he gave, being himself l)aj)tized before the Father said, 



230 Sweeney's sermons. 

*' This is my beloved Son, iu whom I am well pleased." 
Thus, both by precept aud example, he says to all, "If 
you would be children of God, you must be baptized." His 
teaching and example can by no fair construction be made 
to mean less than this. 

In his last commission given to his disciples, sending 
them to all nations with the gospel, he said the same thing, 
without figure or symbol : " Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature : he that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall 
be damned." (Mark xvi : 15,16.) This language, fairly 
and honestly interpreted, puts the salvation promised upon 
the conditions of belief and baptism. How would fair- 
minded people understand such language out of the Bible ? 
For instance, let a responsible man of this city proclaim 
thus : '* He that believes and is baptized shall have one 
thousand dollars." Would the people have any difiiculty 
in understanding the conditions of obtaining the money ? 
Certainly not. Every believer who desired the thous- 
and dollars would be baptized. He would listen to no 
finely drawn criticisms ; he would not delay ; nor would 
he be satisfied with any doubtful " modes." He would be 
baptized. 

We have had aome fine specimens of cavil, of late years, 
over these words of the Master. This, for example : 
" True, the Savior said he that believes and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he only said he that believes not shall 
be damned. He did not say he that believes not, and is 
not haptized, shall be damned." Well, suppose he had 
said, " He that believes not, and is not baptized, shall be 
damned ; " would there have been any sense in it? No. 
Aud if there were any sense in it, would the 2:)hrase "and is 
not baptized," put into the latter clause of the sentence, 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 231 

either add to or diminish the conditions of salvation ? Cer- 
tainly not. It would only add a condition of damnation^ 
would it not ? But unbelief being an all-sufficient ground 
of condemnation, there would be no sense whatever in 
adding ^^and is not baptized." Besides, the unbeliever 
would not if he could, and could not if he would, be bap- 
tized. 

But we should not go to this commission to ascertain the 
conditions of damnation ; but, rather, the conditions of 
salvation. It is that, at any rate, we are inquiring after 
now. ^' He that believes and is baptized shall be saved," 
said the Lord ; thus joining belief and baptism together, 
and upon the two conjointly conditioning salvation. 

Eichard Watson, the eminent and standard theologian 
of the Methodist church, in commenting on this commis- 
sion, in his Theological Institutes, uses this language : *' To 
understand the force of these words of our Lord, it must 
be observed that the gate of the * common salvation' was 
only now for the first time going to be opened to the Gen- 
tile nations. He himself had declared that in his personal 
ministry he was sent but to ' the lost sheep of the house 
of Israel ; ' and he had restricted his disciples in like man- 
ner, not only from ministering to the Gentiles, but from 
entering any city of the Samaritans. By what means, 
therefore, were * all nations' now to be brought into the 
church of God, whicli from henceforth was most truly to 
be catliolic or universal ? Phiinly, by baptizing them that 
believed tlie ^ good news ' and accepted the terms of the 
new covenant. This is apparent from the words; and 
thus was baptism expressly made the initiatory rite by 
whicli believers of * all nations ' wore to be introduced 
into the church and covenant of grace." (Inst., Part 4, p. 
G20.) 



232 sweeneVs sermons. 

With Mr. Watson's idea of the church before this com- 
mission was given, of circumcision and so forth, we 
have nothing to do now. This quotation is made 
to show that this eminent Methodist divine under- 
stood our Lord, in these words, to make belief and 
baptism '* the terms of the new covenant," and bap- 
tism '' the initiatory rite into the church and covenant of 
grace." Just so my brethren understand it. In the 
church and covenant of grace, and only in it, so far as 
the word of God teaches, is salvation. Hence, in this 
commission, belief and baptism are made conditions of sal- 
vation, to all nations and for all ages ; not belief alone, 
but belief and baptism. The two are by divine authority 
and divine appointment joined together in their relation to 
salvation. '' What, therefore, God hath joined together 
let not man put asunder." 

When the apostles went forth to preach under this com- 
mission, we find, as might reasonably be expected, that 
they preached to people of all nations strictly in accord- 
ance with its stipulations. That they might be. able to do 
this they were inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit. 
Hence, our Lord said unto them : *' Behold, I send the 
promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city 
of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on 
high." This endowment, or clothing with power by the 
Holy Spirit, was, no doubt, what the Savior, by a figure 
of speech, called being ** baptized wdth the Holy Spirit." 
This brings us to the Acts of Apostles, where we shall 
find their preaching. The first to preach was Peter. The 
first discourse was at Jerusalem, on the first Pentecost 
after the ascension and coronation of our Lord. The 
Holy Spirit came as the Lord had promised. The disci- 
ples Avere there, as they had been instructed to be. *^ And 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 233 

they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 
**The multitude came together." They were amazed, 
and wondered at what they saw and heard. Peter 
explained the cause of their wonder. And then, as directed 
by the Spirit, he preached to them, as he had been 
directed by the Lord in the commission. The conclusion 
of the great and first sermon was in these words : ^' There- 
fore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God 
hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord 
and Christ." To the hearts of many of the multitude the 
sermon carried conviction ; for we read that ' ' When they 
heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, 
what shall we do ? " It is not worth while to spend time 
arguing that these inquirers believed, so far as faith is a 
conviction of the heart. That fact, to a mind fairly dis- 
posed, is perfectly apparent. Else how could they have 
been pricked in their hearts ? Are persons ever pricked in 
the heart with what they do not believe ? Why would 
they say to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ** What 
shall we do ? " Does this question indicate unbelief? 
These Jews had despised Jesus. They had said, ^^ Cru- 
cify him ; " ^^ Let his blood be upon us and our children." 
They had crucified him. They had mocked him in his 
agonies. They had revelled in his blood. But all this was 
in unbelief. Now they believe, and earnestly call for 
their duty. Peter answered, '* Repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." (Acts ii: 38.) Now, were not Peter's instruc- 
tions in accordance with the com mission ho had received 
of the Lord? There imist be, t\\v\v can bo, no translation 



234 Sweeney's sermons. 

or interpretation of Peter's language here that makes it 
teach less, or more, or in anywise differently from the 
commission under which he was acting. He had been 
commanded to *' preach." He did it. He had been com- 
manded to preach repentance and remission of sins, in the 
name of Jesus, beginning at Jerusalem. He had received 
a commission from the Lord that said ; ' ' Preach the gos- 
pel to every creature ; he that believes and is baptized 
shall be saved." To all this Peter was true, l)oth at Jeru- 
salem and elsewhere thereafter. 

In this discourse, then, we find that Peter told believers 
to repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins. To their belief, produced by 
hearing what he had preached, he added the further 
duties of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus — 
repentance and baptism jomed together — for the remission 
of sins. What, therefore, God hath joined together let 
not man put asunder. 

Let us next look briefly at the history of Saul's salva- 
tion. And we will begin the examination by reading the 
words of Ananias to him, sent to tell him what he ''must 
do : " '' And now, why tarriest thou ? Arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord." (Acts xxii : 16.) We learn in this chapter, and 
others where Saul's conversion is recited, that on his way 
from Jerusalem to Damascus, persecuting the disciples, 
the Lord himself appeared to him. The main purpose, how- 
ever, for which the Lord appeared ^ersona% to Saul was to 
make him an apostle. This the Lord explained tobim at the 
time. But when the Lord appeared to him, Saul was con- 
vinced that Jesus was the Christ ; was made a believer in 
him whom he had theretofore persecuted, by hearing the 
truth from the Lord's own mouth. And he asked: 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 235 

'* What shall I do, Lord ? ' The Lord told him to go into 
Damascus, ^^ and there it shall be told thee of all things 
which are appointed for thee to do." We have already 
seen what was '' appointed" for believers to do in the com- 
mission ; and it was to this appointment, no doubt, the 
Lord referred. Saul arose and went into Damascus. The 
Lord sent Ananias to tell him what was '^ appointed" for 
him to do, and what he ''must do." Ananias went, and 
told him, as we have read, '' Arise and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
Ananias did not need to preach Jesus to him. Saul had 
seen him in the way. Ananias did not tell him to believe. 
Saul did believe already. Ananias did not tell him to 
repent. Saul was a penitent man already. He had been 
three days waiting in patience and prayer to know what 
was ''appointed" for him yet to do. That Ananias told 
him. That only he needed to tell him. And now, let us 
notice that we have in Saul, a believer, a penitent believer, a 
praying, penitent believer told to arise and be baptized, 
and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. 
Does not this strictly harmonize with the commission, in 
which the Lord " appointed " that " he that belie veth and 
is baptized shall be saved ? " It is no wonder INIr. Wesley 
should say, in his note on these words of Ananias to Saul : 
" Baptism, administered to real penitents, is both a means 
and seal of pardon. Nor did God, ordinarily, in the 
primitive church, bestow this on any, unless through this 
means." 

We are often asked the impertinent question, " TTow 
can baptism wash away sins?" We do not know how. 
Neither do we know how blood cleanses from sin. Still, 
we believe tlu^ word of Ood. We shall p(M'li:i|)s, nc^viM- be 
able to see how baptism washes away sins, and ( spt^'ially 



236 sweeneVs sermons. 

if we look upon it as an empty ceremony. But as long as 
we see written on it " the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost," we ought to consider it suf- 
ficiently endorsed to be good for all it calls for. Let us 
not be troubled by questions of doubt or unbelief. 
Remember Abraham's faith, and walk in the gteps thereof, 
nothing doubting. 

Before leaving this case of Saul, let us indulge a single 
reflection further. Almost every passage of Scripture 
quoted to support the doctrine of justification by faith 
oiHy, is taken from PauFs writings and preaching. Here 
we have seen how he came to the remission of sins. Was 
it by faith only ? Surely not. Well, as we have here his 
experience, would it not be fair, to him, to interpret his 
preaching and writings in the light of the same ? Would 
it not be wise, as well as fair, to interpret what he said to 
the jailer, and all he said in his epistles about justification, 
in harmony with the recorded manner in which he came 
to the remission of sins ? 

Before dismissing this part of the subject, let us notice 
a few passages in the epistles, referring to baptism, and 
showing its design. (Titus iii ; 5 : ) ' ^ Not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The washing — or 
laver — of regeneration is baptism. All the better critics 
so undei-stand it. The apostle here teaches, then, that 
God saves us by two things in the regeneration, namely: 
the renewing of the Holy Spirit and baptism. This 
accords strictly with the Saviour's own words TJohn iii 5: ): 
** Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In the one birth 
the Spirit renews the heart, and the person is baptized — 



BAPTISM FOK REjMTSSION OF SINS. 237 

and is thus saved by the laver of regeneration and renew- 
ing of the Spirit. And both these passages accord with 
our Lord's comroission, and with the preaching w^e have 
noticed under that commission. 

(I. Peter iii: 21:) ^'Wherein [Noah's ark] few, that 
is eight, souls were saved by water, the antitype whereof, 
[as Wesley correctly translates], baptism doth also now 
save us (^not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but 
the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the res- 
uirection of Jesus Christ." *' Baptism now saves us," 
because our Lord has said, '' He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall he saved.'^ That's the explanation. Before dis- 
missing this passage — plain enough without comment, but 
a little difiicult to understand after much comment — let us 
read a remark upon it by Richard Watson^ the great 
Methodist theologian : ' ' In like manner [he had defined 
the word rendered ansiuer to mean aim, iutent, and had 
given an instance in xhe Old Testament.] baptism has an 
end, an intent, ' not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh,' but obtaining * a good conscience toward God ; ' aud 
it requires, claims, this good conscience through that faith 
in Christ whereof cometh remission of sius, the cleansing 
of the ' conscience from dead works,' and those supplies of 
supernatural aid by which, in future, men may live in all 
good conscience before God. It is thus that we see how 
St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of 
Noah in preparing the ark as an act of fiiith by which lie 
was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian bap- 
tism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to 
the remission of sins, or the obtaining a good coiifscionce 
before God." (Tlieo. Inst., part 4, ])age ()24.) 

Other passages of Scripture might be citcnl to show- 
that baptism is inifiaiivG to the church of Gc)d, and Iumico 



238 Sweeney's sermons. 

to the enjoyment of all its promises and blessings; but 
what has been read must suffice. Now, are we at liberty 
to conclude, in the light of these passages from the w^ord 
of God, that baptism is a mere ** ceremony," and that one 
can be justified without it as w^ell as with it ? Can we con- 
clude that it is a mere *' symbol," and in no sense con- 
nected with the sinner's justification or salvation? Surely 
not. 

The view some people now take of baptism, that min- 
imizes it to a mere empty ceremony for christening gun- 
boats, cannons and infants, and of no importance even in 
such cases, is one of the workings of the law of reaction 
upon the public mind. It is an extreme, begotten by 
another. The church fatljers of the third century magni- 
fied baptism as much as some now minimize it. Tertul- 
lian, about the beginning- of the third century, contended 
that there was a virtue or grace imparted to the Avaters of 
baptism, as to those of the pool of Bethesda, by the angel, 
that made them efficacious in taking away sins. Others 
of the church fathers, especially in Egypt, took the same 
view. And it was in Egypt, and early in the third cen- 
tury, that infant baptism, so-called, was brought into the 
church. It was put upon the ground of original sin, and 
the efficaciousness of the waters of baptism to wash away 
guilt. TertuUian, it is true, did not believe in infant bap- 
tism, but it was because he did not believe infants were 
sinners. But Origen believed in the guilt of infants, and 
also took the extreme view^ of the efficaciousness of the 
waters^ of baptism. Hence, he contended for infant bap- 
tism, to wash aw^ay the pollution of their birth. And he 
was the first man on record to advocate the practice. 
When this great father was besieged with inquiries as to 
why infants w^ere baptized, when the practice w^as a new 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 289 

one, he answered as follows: ^* Having occasion given in 
this place, I will mention a thing that causes frequent 
inquiries among the brethren : Infants are baptized for the 
forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they 
sinned ? Or how can any reason of the laver in their case 
hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even 
now ; none is free from pollution, though his life be but 
of the length of one day upon the earth ? And it is for 
that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollu- 
tion of onr birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." 
(VoL I., p. 65.) 

Original sin, and the virtue of the sacrament of bap- 
tism, without faith or penitence, to cleanse from sin, com- 
pose the ground upon which infant baptism, so-called, was 
brought into the church, and upon which it was defended 
by its advocates universally, until within a comparatively 
recent period. Mr. Wesley thus grounded it in his writ- 
ings upon the subject. Hear him: ^' As to the grounds 
of it : If infants are guilty of original sin then are they 
proper subjects of baptism ; seeing, in the ordinary way, 

they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by bap- 
tism. . . . It is true, the second Adam has found a 
remedy for the disease which came upon all by the offense 
of the first ; but the benefit of this is to be received 
through the means which he hath appointed ; through bap- 
tism in particular, which is "' ^ ordinary means he hath 
appointed for that purpose, and to which God has tied us, 
though he may not have tied himself." (Treaties on bap- 
tism, Doct. Tracts, p. 251.) In the ritual of baptism, in 
the discipline of the Methodist Episco])al church, it was 
grounded upon the same doctrine, until that ritual was 
changed, only a few years aeo. S^ince the great reaction 
among Protestant pedo-baptists on the question as to the 



240 Sweeney's sermons. 

necessity and importance of baptism, the practice of 
infant baptism is about left groundless. If it were not 
already in their churches, it would most likely never come 
in, since they have now no substantial reason for it. In 
fact, they deem it of comjDaratively little importance now 
that even penitent believers should be baptized. With 
many of them now, baptism is a mere ceremony — almost 
an empty ceremony. In their controversies they not 
infrequently belittle it ; and in practice they neglect it, 
especially in the case of infants. Now, they tell us that 
the only baptism worth contending for — the only real bap- 
tism, in fact — is that of the Holy Ghost. Some of them 
say, with the Quakers, that that is the ^*one baptism" of 
the Ne^v Testament — the true Christian baptism. 

As this discourse is intended to have considerable scope? 
a few words about the baptism of the Holy Spirit may be 
allowed. There never was any such literal thing as a 
baptism with or in the Holy Spirit; no one was ever liter- 
ally dipped into the Holy Spirit, nor was the Holy Spirit 
ever literally poured or sprinkled upon any person. The 
very idea of such a literal baptism is preposterous. 
What ! is the Holy Spirit a liquid or other element that 
can be turned out in a stream or scattered in particles 
upon a person, or that a person may be dipped into? 
Surely not. How, then, comes it to pass that we have in 
the Scriptures the expression ''baptized with the Holy 
Ghost?" Clearly, it is a figurative expression. When 
John the Baptist and our Lord spoke of the abundant 
communication of the Spirit to the first disciples, after 
the ascension, they called it a baptism by a figure of 
speech. What is a figure of speech ? When one calls 
one thing by the name of another, in some respects dif- 
ferent thing, he uses a figure of speech. It is a very com- 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 241 

mon mode of expression. We all use words figuratively, 
and do so frequently. Children do it. It was more com- 
mon among oriental people two thousand years ago than 
it is here and now. This method of expression is adopted 
for the purpose of giving force and emphasis to our 
thoughts beyond what we are able to do by the literal 
use of words. If, for example, one wishes to give great 
emphasis to the thought of some man's power, mental or 
physical, he could do so by calling him an engine. This 
would, of course, be a figure of speech, but one that all would 
.readily understand without concluding that a man is really 
an engine, or an engine really a man. We have heard 
boys call some little hero a horse, and we understand the 
meaning of this homely figure without concluding that a 
boy is really a horse, or a horse a real boy. The Holy 
Spirit was given, in a measure, before Jesus ascended to 
heaven. The prophets had it in some measure, and so 
did John the Baptist himself, and other good people. 
But when Jesus ascended to the throne in heaven and 
was glorified, it was given to his apostles and first disci- 
ples in a measure not theretofore known. They were en- 
dowed with the Spirit — guided by the Spirit into all the 
truth, and into the utterance of the truth, in languages 
with which they were wholly unacquainted. They could 
interpret tongues, heal the sick, foretell events yet in the 
future, and even raise the dead to life. When John and 
our Lord foretold this abundant and extraordinary com- 
munication of the Spirit to the disciples of Jesus, they 
called it a baptism of the Spirit. Tlie peo])le to whom 
they thus spoke knew what it was to be baptized. They 
had been baptized. John had baptized thousands of 
people in a recent period. Jesus, by his disciples, bap- 
tized more than John. Indeed, baptizing had come to be 
(16) 



242 Sweeney's sermons. 

a common, every-day thing. It was immersion, too. It 
was an abundant thing, as to the element used — water. 
It was performed in the river Jordan. It required 
''much water." As to the subject, it was an overwhelm- 
ing, a burial. Now, this was a very suitable word, to use 
figuratively, to express the abundant, the overwhelming, 
gifts of the Spirit promised to the disciples. Jesus so 
used this very word, because so common and so well 
known, to convey an idea of the overwhelming character 
of the sufferings he was to endure. The very best critics 
have taken this view of the expression ''baptized in the 
Holy Spirit." Bloomfield, speaking of the expression as 
used by John the Baptist (Matt. iii. 11,) says: "The 
most probable opinion is that ot Chrysostom and others 
of the ancients, that baptism here, in the sense ohruere 
aliquem re, has reference to the exuberant abundance of 
those extraordinary spiritual gifts soon to be imparted to 
the first converts." And, on Acts i. 5, where our Lord 
uses the same figure, he says: '^Baptized suggests the 
abundance of the thing — q. d. ' ye shall be jylenteously im- 
bued with the influences of the Holy Spirit.'" 

Dr. MacKnight expresses about the same view: "The 
descent of the Spirit upon the first converts was called 
baptism on account of the multitude, variety, and great- 
ness of the gifts with which it was attended, insomuch 
that the minds of those on whom he descended were as 
fully replenished with his gifts as their bodies were cov- 
ered with water in baptism." 

We see nothing now among Christians, nor has there 
been anything since the extraordinary formative period 
of the church, that could properly be called, even by a 
figure, a baptism of the Spirit. The children of God now 
have and enjoy the Holy Spirit in a measure proportioned 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 243 

to their faith, obedience, and trust, but certainly in no 
measure such as Paul and Peter did. Men now who make 
the loudest profession of Holy Spirit baptism are the men 
who can not be induced, in some cases, to preach the 
words we all confess were spoken by the Spirit. They 
ofttimes belittle the commandments given by the Holy 
Spirit. They are mistaken about having received a bap- 
tism of the Holy Spiiit : it was only a sprinkling that they 
got. 

The baptism of the Spirit was a promise. The baptism 
appointed in the commission of our Lord is a command. 
The baptism of the Spirit was not an ordinance or com- 
mand to be obeyed by the believer, but the baptism of the 
commission is a command to be obeyed. The baptism of 
the Spirit was not to be administered by men; but that of 
the commission w^as appointed to be administered only by 
men. The baptism of the Spirit was not a baptism '4nto 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Gho^t ; " but that of the commission is to be so performed. 
The baptism of the Spirit was not to be initiative of its 
subjects; but the baptism of the commission is in- 
itiative into the church, into the one body. The bap- 
tism of the Spirit was not connected with salvation or the 
remission of sins; but the baptism of the commission is so 
connected. The baptism of the commission is an act of 
the faith of the individual believer, and is hence a transi- 
tive act— one in which, by his own voluntary act, ho 
passes into the one body, into Christ: is born into tlio 
kingdom of God. The baptism of the Spirit is a figurative 
baptism ; but that of the commission is a literal baptism 
of the believers of all nations and all times. 

The baptism of the commission, and of all those pas- 
sages already quoted from Acts of Apostles and from the 



244 Sweeney's sermons. 

epistles, is the ' ' one baptism " — the literal baptism of the 
new institution — and its element is water. It is, in almost 
every way possible to words and figures, connected with 
the tinner's salvation or pardon. It is joined with faith, 
and made with it a condition of salvation. It is con- 
nected with repentance, and with it made for the remis- 
sion of sins. It is shown to be initatory in its character — 
believers are said to have been *' baptized into Christ," 
and so to have "put on Christ;'' ''baptized into his 
death ; " and so to have come into the benefits of his death ; 
*' baptized into one body," and so to have been made 
members thereof — and in this way shown to be for remis- 
sion of sins. It may be said in all candor and fairness, 
and with all proper respect for every one, that no intel- 
ligent, fair-minded, person can read the Scriptures cited 
already in this discourse without feeling in his heart that 
they do certainly, at least, seem to make baptism a condi- 
tion of remission of sins. And yqI it must be granted 
that intelligent, fair-minded, honest Protestants reject the 
doctrine, and look upon baptism as a mere ''ceremony," 
or "symbol," or "outward sign" of something ; or some- 
thing else, they may not know what — only they mav think 
they know it is not for the remission of sins. And whv is 
this? 

Well, Protestants generally have accepted the doctrine 
of justification by faith ; and that is certainly a doctrine 
of the Scriptures. Justification by faith, it is generally 
agreed, is opposed to justification by works. This is true. 
The apostle Paul, most conspicuously of the New Testa- 
ment teachers, sets the one over against the other. He 
most emphatically denies that justification is by works of 
righteousness, and as emphatically afl5rms that it is by 
f uth. Baptism has been classed with works ; and hence 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 245 

baptism for the remission of sins has been rejected because 
it has been supposed to be opposed to the Scripture doc- 
trine of justification by faith. This is the most formidable 
difficulty to-day that the truth on this subject has to con- 
tend with. Let us look to this seeming conflict. Let it 
be granted that if ' ' baptism for the remission of sins " is 
really opposed to '^justification by faith," then it is false. 
Let us look, however, at the classification. Is baptism 
rightly classed with what Paul calls ' ' works of righteous- 
ness?" It certainly is not ; and here is -the fundamental 
difficulty. Baptism belongs on the other side. It is 
always to be classed with faith. It is an act of faith. It 
is an objective expression of faith. It is faith actualized. 
Without faith, it is nothing. Without faith, it is indeed 
an empty ceremony. All that it is, it is as an expression 
of faith in elesus the Christ. It is of faith, and can not be 
scripturally separated from it. ' ' Baptism for the remis- 
sion of sins," therefore, is justification by faith. Belief 
and baptism are divinely wedded, and can not be humanly 
divorced. Baptism is opposed to works of righteousness, 
just as faith is, and just because faith is. Let us consult 
Paul on this point. Titus iii. 5: '^ Not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, bvt according to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washins: of regeneration, and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here is oppositio)}. In 
this sentence the apostle opposes ^Svorks of righteousness" 
on tlie one hand to **the washing of regeneration and re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost " on the other. He teaches 
that God docs not save us by the *^ works of righteousness," 
but does save us by the '* washing of regeneration and re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost." Now, **tlie washing for 
laver] of regeneration" is baptism \ the renewing iA' the 
Holv Gliost is cffiM'tiMl tlirouo'h f((if]i: so here we liave 



246 SWEENEY^S SERMONS. 

faith and baptism on the same side, and opposed to works 
of righteousness on the other side. This is Paitrs classifi- 
cation. It has been denied by some that the ''laver of 
regeneration" is baptism, and asserted, in the interests of 
error, that it refers to the work of the Spirit in regenera- 
tion. This view, however, hardly deserves a notice. It 
is only necessary to observe that "the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost" is added to the ''laver of regeneration." 
They are two things. The passage clearly means the same 
as *'born of water and the Spirit," and both mean the 
same as "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Any w^ay, in every scriptural classification, belief and 
baptism go together, and are opposed to what Paul calls 
"works of righteousness." 

Richard Watson, in his Biblical and Iheological Diction- 
ary, in an article on " Baptism," says: "The design of 
this institution [baptism], which was to express faith in 
Christ on the part of those who wxre baptized, and to de- 
clare their resolution of openly professing his religion, 
and cultivating real and universal holiness, appears 
from . . . Titus iii: 5." And, again, in his Theo- 
logical Institutes, part 4, page 624: "Baptism, which is 
also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of 
sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before God." 
This standard Methodist authority is quoted as corrobor- 
ating the view of baptism which we take, that it is an act 
of faith, because it is of great weight w^ith some, who, in 
their controversies on this subject, class baptism with 
works of righteousness, and to show that such a classifica- 
tion is not only in the teeth of Paul's t. aching upon the 
subject, but also of their own standard theology. 

But let us now give attention to w^hat is considered the 
strongest passage, and the one ofteuest quoted, to prove 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 247 

justification by faith only, and without baptism, in all 
Paul's writings: *^Now to him that worketh is the re- 
ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him 
that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the 
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Rom. 
iv. 4, 5.) 

Now, is the apostle here combating the acts of faith f 
Is he to be understood as intending to exclude those acts 
by which faith expresses itself, and, in fact, becomes real, 
actual^ living faith ? When he says *Ho him that worketh 
is the reward not reckoned of grace," does he mean the 
one who confesses Jesus Christ, and is baptized into him — 
the one whose faith speaks out and acts out ? Surely not. 
This would contradict his own experience in coming to 
remission of sins, as we have already seen, as well as so 
many unmistakable passages of Scripture — many of them 
in his own writings. How, then, are we to understand 
him ? Let us hear on this point also a somewhat distin- 
guished Methodist writer, Dr. Whedon, in his Commentary 
on the New Testament We will read from his notes on 
Romans, third and fourth chapters. He says: -'The 
battle of the apostle against works in this epistle is part 
of his great battle against circumcision as a means of 
salvation, against the claim of the power of the Jewish 
ritual to save without Christ, and against the proud pre- 
tenses of heathen moralism. It is, indeed, the battle of 
the gospel against all anti-Christianity. . . This exclu- . 
sion of works as a condition means an exclusion of all 
merit or compensation to God. . . If, wherever we find 
the word worlcs in the epistle, we read it adequate compen- 
sation, we shall at once see the conclusiveness of the ai)os- 
tle's reasoning." 

Now, does biiptisni propose to^'.^a^'t' without Cliristf*' 



248 Sweeney's sermons. 

Does it deny or repudiate Christ? Does it belong to 
''anti-Christianity ? " Does it propose to '* jx^^/ or compen- 
sate God ? '' Does any one look upon it as having in it 
any purdmsing power? Surely not. On the contrary, 
baptism is of the gospel, and goes with it in *Hhe great 
battle of the gospel against all anti-Christianity." It is 
of faith. It is faith accepting Christ. It is faith putting 
on Christ. So far from being a purchasing or compen- 
sating work, disclaiming any need of Christ, it is the act 
of faith by which the penitent believer puts on Christ, 
''in ivhom we have redemption by his blood, even the for- 
giveness of sins." It is not opposed to grace. It empha- 
sizes the doctrine of salvation by grace. It is the act in 
which the penitent believer surrenders himself to Christ 
to be saved by his grace. It is faith reaching out for the 
death of Christ. The penitent believer is ''baptized into 
his death" — "is buried with him by baptism into death" 
— into his death. It preaches louder than words can the 
merit of the death of Christ. Paul was combating a plan 
or system of justification by works of merit or compensa- 
tion ivithont the sacrifice of Christ — a plan that proposed to 
save the sinner without faith in Christ, without him at all, 
in any sense. The eflTort to class the baptism of the be- 
liever with such works is a frightful misrepresentation of 
the apostle, and is pitiable indeed. It is a stupendous 
blunder and full of mischief. 

We believe into Christ, it is true ; and it is equally true 
that we are baptized into Christ. The explanation is that 
baptism is the act of faith by which we put him on. The 
doctrine of justification by faith is scriptural, and the 
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins is scriptural 
also. They are both alike and together scriptural. This 
is the scriptural and conservative view of the subject. It 



BAPTISM FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 249 

neither magnifies baptism, by attributing to it some merit 
or virtue to take away sins without faith, nor minimizes 
it, by making it a mere ceremony and one of little impor- 
tance. And, besides, it admits of the truth of all the 
Scripture statements, both about faith and baptism, with- 
out mutilating them. This view of the subject puts an 
end to that kind of discussion that consists in one party 
quoting and emphasizing all those passages of Scripture 
that teach justification by faith, and the other party 
quoting with emphasis those passages which teach baptism 
for remission of sins ; thus seeming, to the untaught, to 
array Scripture against Scripture. 

And this view, too, harmonizes perfectly the teachings 
of the apostles Paul and James. The sinner is justified 
by faith, without such works as Paul excluded ; and yet 
faith, without such acts as make it a real, actual, living 
faith, **is dead, being alone," as James taught. We are 
justified without such works as Paul combated ; but we 
are justified by such works as James contended for — 
works of faith — ** obedience to the faith" — as Paul also 
taught. 



SERMON XII. 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? 

And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I 
do to be saved? (Acts xvi: 30.) 

THERE is a general agreement among Protestants that 
the principle on which men are accepted with God 
is the same, and has been the same, in all dispensations, 
patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian. In fact, principles 
never change. Forms, ceremonies, ordinances, and pos- 
itive enactments have been changed with the different 
dispensations, but the same principles obtain through all. 
Principles are durable. Faith is a principle running 
through all the dispensations of religion. It is the principle, 
on our part, upon which God accepts and blesses us. 
This principle has obtained from Adam to the present 
time. But faith, merely as a conviction of the heart, 
merely as a psychological condition, is not sufficient, and 
never has been, to bring the soul into acceptance with God 
and the enjoyment of his promises. In this meager sense 
it is worthless; it is dead. Faith must be a real, living, 
actual principle to benefit the soul. It must be faithful- 
ness to God. It must be fidelity to him. It must be firm 
allegiauce to duty to God and implicit trust in him. In 
divinely appointed forms, ceremonies, ordinances, and 
positive laws, faith acts, expresses itself, actualizes itself, 
and becomes the living, actual, real principle on which 
men are accepted with God. Real, living faith hears 
what God says, does W'hat he bids, and trusts his promises. 
(250) 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? 251 

Only such faith is worth anything; indeed, only such 
faith is alive. 

The Bible deals very little in verbal definitions. Its 
method of teaching is rather by examples, illustrations, 
exemplifications of principles. God shows us principles 
in the lives of men. The life of Abraham is God's defini- 
tion of faith to men. In that life, God shows us what he 
means by faith. Here we have a complete, divine stand- 
ard of faith. Hence Abraham is **the father of all them 
that believe." He is held up in the Bible as an example 
of faith, and all who would be children of God are bidden 
to * * walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abra- 
ham." In no instance was faith ever put to severer trial. 
But in every trial it came out approved. It expressed 
itself. It actualized itself. ''By faith, Abraham, when 
he was called to go out into a place which he should after 
receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not 
knowing whither he went. By faith, he sojourned in the 
land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in taber- 
nacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the 
promise." And again: ''By faith, Abraham when he 
was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the 
promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was 
said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called, aceouuting 
that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead." 
Abraham staggered at nothing. What God said do, that 
he did, yielding unquestioning obedience to God. No 
sacrifice of ease, or feeling, or philosophy was too great 
for him. Isaac was to Abraham everything. All prom- 
ises, all his hopes, were bound up in him. He was abso- 
lutely all the future to Abraham. But he did not with- 
hold him from God. And when he had in his heart 
offered him up to God, then it was he came to the 



252 SWEENEY^S SERIVIONS. 

ram, the substitute (loci provided for Isaac, the type of 
him to whom faith now brings us all. Here we have the 
true type of faith, and the type of Christ, our sacrifice. 

God bids us look at Abraham, and thus shows us what 
he means by faith. In Abraham he presents us a man that 
was faithful to him ; not merely when it was convenient ; 
not merely when it seemed wise to him ; not merely when 
it was in the line of his pleasure, or philosophy, or con- 
venience ; but at all times and at any sacrifice. 

Abraham's faith was expressed and actualized by doing 
what God required him to do. Noah's faith was actual- 
ized by doing what God told him to do. So, under the 
Christian dispensation, faith comes into actual existence 
by obedience to the commands of Christ. The principle 
is the same, but its actualization differs under the different 
dispensations. Faith is the same subjectively in all dis- 
pensations ; but objectively it is varied by the divine com- 
mands. 

With these remarks premised, we proceed to the ques- 
tion : 

^'W^HAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?" 

This is a practical question. It is fAe practical question, 
and, in fact, the only really practical question in the 
whole matter of our salvation. Of course, God saves us. 
His love is the prime, moving cause of our salvation. 
But all questions as to the divine attributes are theoreti- 
cal, and all deductions as to the action of these attributes 
are more or less speculative. 

God saves us through Jesus Christ. The death of Jesus 
is the sole meritorious, or compensative cause of our sal- 
vation. But even the atonement is not a practical ques- 
tion. Just how God can, in virtue of the sacrifice of 
Christ, be just and the justifier of the believer, we mny 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? 253 

not understand. How the death of Christ met the de- 
mands of justice and satisfied the claims of the law against 
us, is not a practical question. It is enough for us to 
accept the facts as stated in the word of God. 

All we do or can do is merely appropriative. But what 
God has required of us must be done. This is, therefore, 
the practical question : * ^ What must I do to be saved ? " 
It is not what must God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit do ? 
but what must J do? That's the practical question with 
us in the whole matter. 

We find this question, substantially, propounded four 
times in the New Testament by sinners, and in no case 
were they rebuked for it. On the other hand, it was 
always heard and treated as a proper question, both by 
the Savior himself, and, after him, by his disciples. The 
first instance was that of the rich young man who came 
to Jesus in his personal ministry and asked: ^'AVhat 
good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?'* 
Jesus told him to ''keep the commandments." The 
young man again asked: ''Which?" Jesus referred 
him to the commandments of the decalogue. The young 
man answered: "All these have I kept from my youth 
up; what lack I yet?" This was under the Mosaic dis- 
pensation, and the law given by Moses, as a divine code, 
was still in force. The young man knew the law. He 
had lived under it from his youth up. He expected, no 
doubt, that Jesus would tell him something else, if not 
different from the law, in addition to it. And lie had 
reason to expect something else. Jesus in speaking of the 
law, in the sermon on the mount, had said quite enough 
to justify the expectation. But the hiw was still in force. 
True, the evening twilight of that dispensation had come, 
and the morning twilight of the new one was dawniug ; 



254 Sweeney's sermons. 

but the law was jet in force, and Jesus taught the young 
man to keep it. All else he could then do was, in the 
language of Jesus : "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that 
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have 
treasure in heaven ; and come follow me." Under 
the law, a Jew's whole duty was to keep the law. In the 
mingling twilight of the dispensations, while yet the law 
was in force, one could keep the law, and leave all and 
follow Jesus, as the disciples did, and thus be schooled for 
the work of the coming dispensation. Under the Christian 
dispensation, one's whole duty is to hear and obey Christ, 
We are under the full light of the Christian dispensation. 
We can not, therefore, now properly answer one as Jesus 
did the rich young man. That answer was right then, 
but it would not be right now. No one, I presume, 
would so answer a sinner now. 

After the ascension of our Savior and the descension of 
the Holy Spirit, and after the law% given until the prom- 
ised seed should come, had expired by limitation, and the 
gospel had been committed to the disciples to be preached 
to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, we find in Acts of 
Apostles this question three times propounded, and an- 
swered. 

When the gospel was first preached at Jerusalem by 
Peter, the convicted Jews there *^said unto Peter and to 
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, ivhat shall we do f" 
— to be saved, of course. 

Then, again, Saul, when convinced that Jesus, whom 
he had theretofore persecuted so fiercely, was indeed the 
Christ, he asked the Lord, " What ivilt thou have me to dof" 

In the text, the jailer at Philippi propounds the same 
question substantially to Paul and Silas. It is the answer 
to this question with which this sermon will have to do. 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?" 255 

In the first place, we notice that the answers to this 
question, even in the Christian dispensation, and all given 
to sinners, are not the same. At Jerusalem, Peter's 
answer was: '^Repent and be baptized every one of 
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 
ii: 38.) 

When Saul propounded this question to the Savior, 
we read that the ''Lord said unto him, Arise and go into 
the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." 
Saul went. The Lord then sent Ananias to tell him what 
he ''must do." Ananias went; and, after telling him 
that he was to be an apostle and a witness unto all men 
of what he had seen and heard, he said: *'And now, 
why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 
xxii: 16.) 

The jailer at Philippi was answered "Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
house." The question is the same substantially in all 
these cases, but in each case receives a different answer. 
Why is this? If we can determine why it is, we shall at 
the same time, and by the same process, arrive at the full 
exhaustive answer to the question of the sermon, " What 
must I do to be saved ? " 

Let us try to take a comprehensive view of this great 
subject. It is so easy to be narrow in our views that it 
requires an effort to be otherwise. It is possible for one 
to look so steadfastly and intently upon one thing as to be 
unable to see another. It is possible for one to believe 
one thing so devoutly as not to believe another thing 
equally true, at all. It is possible for one to so interpret a 
statement of Scripture as to make it contradict another 



256 Sweeney's sermons. 

statement equally true, consistent, and important. Friends 
of the Scriptures ought to try to interpret them harmoni- 
ously. Every statement of Scripture upon a given sub- 
ject should be so interpreted, if possible, as to admit of 
the truth of every other Scripture statement upon the 
same subject. Enemies of the Bible do not always so in- 
terpret it, but surely its friends should. Would we not 
so interpret the statements of a letter from a friend? 
Would we put any possible interpretation upon any state- 
ment in a letter from a friend, even though it should 
make it contradict other statements in the same letter? 
Not if it were possible to interpret them all harmoniously. 

Now, let us apply this rule of harmonious interpretation 
to each and all of the Scripture answers to the question, 
'' What must I do to be saved? " If it be possible, and it 
certainly is, as we shall see, let us construe all these 
answers consistently and harmoniously. If we agree to 
this, and I trust we do, the difficulty is passed, and we 
shall have no further trouble in understanding the subject. 

Let us begin with the answer of Paul and Silas to the 
jailer — ** Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
be saved." It is possible, now, to interpret this statement 
as a full, detailed, and an exhaustive answer to the ques- 
tion for the sinner under all circumstances, and, thus, to 
come to the conclusion that a sinner has only to believe on 
the Lord Jesus to be saved. But, then, what shall we do 
with the answer of Peter, at Jerusalem — ** Repent, and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins ? " and with that of Ananias to 
Saul — ''Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord?" Shall we make that 
contradict these? or shall we so construe these as to make 
them mean nothing ? We want no contradiction j neither 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED. 257 

do we desire to interpret any part of the word of God 
clean away ; so we will try another interpretation of the 
phrase, ** Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." We will 
say it is not an exhaustive answer to the question, ^^ What 
must I do to be saved?" but a sufficient and a proper 
answer to the person who asked it, in his condition, and, 
indeed, the proper answer to all persons under like circum- 
stances, but to be supplemented by further instruc- 
tions when circumstances and conditions are changed ; 
that is, we will conclude that, while Paul and 
Silas only told the jailer to ** believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ," immediately upon his asking the question, they 
afterward — after enlightening him concerning the way of 
salvation — commanded him to ''repent and be baptized, 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." 
This would harmonize the two answers, anyhow. Now let 
us see if the context will not justify — does not, in fact, 
demand — this interpretation. Immediately following the 
answer, ''Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved, and thy house," we read as follows: '* And 
they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that 
were in his house. And he took them the same hour of 
the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he 
and all his, straightway." 

So it appears that immediately upon telling the inquirer 
to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, ''they spake unto 
him the word of the Lord." Now, when he heard 
"the word of the Lord" and believed, his condition 
was changed — the condition of his mind, certainly, and 
most likely that of his heart. When the apostles told him 
to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they did not wait for 
him to ask, who is the Lord Jesus Christ? or, how can I 
believe ? but they immediately " spake unto him the word 
17 



258 SWEENEY^S SERMON. 

of the Lord." This was, of course, to enlighten him con- 
cerning the Lord Jesus, for as yet there is no evidence 
that the jailer had even heard of him. *' Faith comes by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord." They 
spake unto him the word of the Lord, therefore, that he 
might believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as they had com- 
manded him. When he had heard the word, and had become 
a believer, did not the apostles command him to repent 
and be baptized ? It is not written that they did, but is it 
not clearly inferable that they did? Why did he take 
them the same hour of the night and wash their stripes, 
and be baptized? What did he know about baptism if 
they had not told him ? Repentance and baptism are a 
part of ''the word of the Lord." When, therefore, 
" they spake unto him the w^ord of the Lord," he learned 
the further duties of repentance and baptism ; and that 
accounts for his attending to them the same hour of the 
night. 

It is important to bear in mind the condition of the 
jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved. He 
had not heard the word of the Lord. He w as not a believer 
in Jesus. There is no evidence that he knew anything of 
him whatever. He had doubtless heard that Paul and 
Silas claimed to be '' the servants of the most high God," 
to ''show unto the people the way of salvation." The 
"damsel possessed with a spirit of divination" had fol- 
lowed them, proclaiming this for many days. Paul cast 
the spirit out of her. Her masters were enraged. Paul 
and Silas were arrested, and beaten, and delivered to the 
jailer. This was all he knew about them up to the 
time he thrust them into the prison. The great earth- 
quake at midnight aroused him. The situation alarmed 
him. He, supposing the prisoners had escaped, was about 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED. 259 

to take his own life. Paul told him to do himself no harm ; 
that the prisoners had not gone, as he had feared. The 
jailer then recollected that Paul and Silas claimed to be the 
servants of the most high God. He was satisfied the prison 
had been shaken by the power of the most high God. He 
concluded, therefore, that they must be the servants of 
the most high God, showing the people the way of salva- 
tion. Hence it was that he asked them what he must do 
to be saved. The apostles gave him a general answer, 
stating the general principle upon which sinners are 
saved, deferring the details until he had heard the word of 
the Lord and believed. Then, as we have seen, having 
learned the way of salvation more fully, he proceeded, 
penitently, to be baptized the same hour of the night. 

Now, let us look more particularly into the condition of 
the persons at Jerusalem who '' said unto Peter and the 
rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do ? " 
We find, by examining the context, that Peter had already 
preached unto them Jesus as the Lord and Christ, con- 
cluding his sermon with this sentence: *' Therefore let 
all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made 
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ." Then we are told that ^' when they heard this 
they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter and 
the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we 
do?" Peter did not tell them to believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, as Paul told the jailer; and why not? Evi- 
dently because they already believed. They had heard 
the story of Jesus; of his resurrection, exaltation, and 
coronation in heaven. It had gone into tlieir hearts. They 
believed it, and asked for tlieir duty. Peter conimanded 
them to do precisely what the jailer did affrr he heard the 
word and believed : '* Repent and be baptized, every one 



260 Sweeney's sermons. 

of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins." So we find these two answers, not contradictory, 
but harmonious, only varied by the condition of the parties 
addressed. 

As we have already seen, when Saul asked this same 
question, '' What wilt thou have me to do?" he was told 
to go into the city of Damascus, and there it should be told 
him what he ''must do." Ananias was sent to him, who told 
him only {o " arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord." Why did he not 
tell him to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," as Paul 
himself afterwards told the jailer? Because Saul already 
believed. Had he not seen the Lord himself and heard 
the truth from his own mouth, on the way from Jerusa- 
lem? He certainly had, and certainly was now^ a believer, 
in so far as faith is a conviction of the heart. As a 
believer, he had asked for his duty, and had been sent to 
Damascus with the promise that there he should be told 
what he '' must do ; " and Ananias had been sent there to 
tell him. There was no need to tell him to believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ. He did that already. He was not in 
the same condition of the jailer at Philippi, who had never 
heard the word of the Lord and believed, and, therefore, 
did not need the same answer. 

Why, then, was not Saul told to '' repent and be bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," 
as Peter told the inquiring Jews at Jerusalem? Simply 
because Ananias had sufficient evidence that Saul was 
already a penitent man. Had he not been in Damascus 
*' three days without sight, and neither did eat nor 
drink?" and had not the Lord told Ananias that Saul was 
praying? Why tell him to repent? Ananias knew he 
was a penitent already ; knew he was a penitent believer 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED. 261 

— a praying penitent believer; and, therefore, did not 
tell him to believe, or to repent, but to arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord. He instructed him as to his duty according to his 
condition and need. 

Thus we see that though the answers to the question, 
** What must I do to be saved?" varied in words some- 
what in these three cases, owing to the different condi- 
tions of the inquirers, yet, in fact, they were in perfect 
harmony. The jailer, the Jews to whom Peter preached 
at Jerusalem, and Saul, all did precisely the same things; 
they all believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; they all 
repented, and were all baptized. Now, this brings us to 
the complete answer to our question. If an untaught, 
unbelieving person should ask the question, as the jailer, 
it would be right to answer, ** Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ; as Paul and Silas did. But when 
taught the word of the Lord, as were the Jews at Jerusa- 
lem, it would be right to answer, *^ Kepent and be bap- 
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins," as Peter did. And when the 
inquirer is a penitent, praying believer, as Saul was, he 
should be told, ** Arise and be baptized and wash away 
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." All travel 
over precisely the same ground, so to speak, but are 
answered differently, because they asked the question at 
different points on the way. For illustration, let us sup- 
pose three persons three miles from Columbus, and, at 
that point, one of them asks a man whom he meets, 
** How far is it to Columbus? " He is answered correctly, 
** Three miles." They travel a mile on the way, and 
there another of the three asks a gentleman Avhom he 
meets, ^*How fiir is it to Columbus?" and is answered 



262 Sweeney's sermons. 

correctly, ** Two miles." A mile further, the third one 
inquires, and is answered, '' One mile." We can see how 
each inquirer was answered correctly ; yet the answ^ers 
were different, being varied by the distance of the parties 
from the objective point. But all these traveled over the 
same ground. It was right, when three miles away, to 
answer, ''Three miles; " but that answer would not have 
been right when only two miles, or one mile, away. 
What would ^ve think of a man that had but one answer 
to the question, How far is it to Columbus ? no matter at 
what point the question was asked ? We would think a 
machine might be made to do as well, would we not? 
But there are people who have but one answer to the 
question, '* What must I do to be saved?" No matter 
how far the inquirer may be from salvation, or how near, 
the answer is the same in all cases: ** Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Of course, 
it cannot be said that this is not a scriptural answer, for it 
is in the very language of Scripture. The trouble is that 
it is often given out of place. We can readily see how 
that it would be wrong to tell a man that it was three 
miles to Columbus when he was only a mile away, be- 
cause some one had so answered him two miles further off. 
Some of our religious neighbors have but one answer for 
the inquirer after salvation, no matter about his condition. 
It is, in all cases, ''Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." 
Thus they answer the unbeliever, and correctly, too ; and 
thus they answer the believer, incorrectly, of course. To 
characters such as the jailer was they say, "Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ ; ' " and in this they are right. To 
characters such as the instructed and convicted Jews at 
Jerusalem they say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; " 
and in this they are wrong, as Peter's answ^er to such 



WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED. 263 

persons clearly shows. Even to such characters as Saul 
was when Ananias went to him they say, ** Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ ; " and that they are wrong in so doing 
the instructions of Ananias to Saul sufficiently show. 
Such believing penitents are often kept waiting and 
praying, taught and encouraged to expect some evidence 
directly from God that their sins are forgiven. If their 
imaginations are quick and easily wrought upon, they can 
be made to take their own feelings, raised to a high pitch 
by prayers, songs, and exhortations, as evidence of their 
pardon ; and then, and thereafter, their assurance varies 
with the ebb and flow of the tide of feeling. Thus per- 
sons are ofttimes kept in a state of alternating belief and 
doubt, hope and fear, for days, weeks, months, years — 
some all their lives — with no other evidence of their 
pardon than they can find in the quicksands of their own 
imaginations. This is sad, but true. It is almost need- 
less to say to the readers of the New Testament that noth- 
ing of the kind was known in apostolic times. Then per- 
sons were promptly taught, according to their conditions, 
what to do to be saved, and how to come to the promise 
of salvation, and to rely upon that promise with all the 
assurance with which we may stand upon the immutable 
and immovable Rock. And so it should be now. 

Happy feelings are not to be despised or disparaged, 
but they should be sought in the promises of God. Our 
feelings, however, are not evidence of sins forgiven. Our 
feelings follow our faith. If we believe we are pardoned, 
we will feel so whether it be a fact or not. The apostles 
never taught persons to believe they were pardoned and 
then take their resultant feelings as evidence of the fact. 
Such teaching is as unscri])tural as it is unreasonable. 
Remission of sins is promised to the baptized penitent be- 



264 Sweeney's sermons. 

liever ; and if sinners were taught now, as they were by 
the apostles, to come thus to the promise of God, they 
would do so now as then, and go on their way rejoicing as 
happy, and more intelligently so than they can be by 
being persuaded simply to believe they are pardoned and 
to take their feelings as proof of the fact, 

'* Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!" Certainly. 
But stop not there, trying to believe you are pardoned. 
** Go forward." ** Repent and be baptized, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." Then' you 
may stand upon the promise of him who, having all 
authority, said to his disciples, ' ^ Go ye into all the world 
and preach the gospel to every creature : he that believes 
and is baptized shall be saved, " and with a confidence 
that will not be shaken by a world in flames. 

All this only brings one to salvation, to the enjoyment 
of that salvation which is of God in Christ Jesus. Then, 
still, the watchword should be, ** Forward." To the 
person thus brought to the enjoyment of salvation, more 
can not be said in so few words than: '^Besides this 
giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, and to 
virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to 
temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to 
godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness 
charity. . . . For so an entrance shall be ministered 
unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," 



SEEMON XnL 



INFANT BAPTISM. 

ONE of the questions about baptism concerning whicb 
there is difference and discussion is as to the proper 
subject of the ordinance — that is, who may be scripturally 
baptized ? It is about universally admitted that a peni- 
tent believer in Jesus Christ, who has not been baptized, 
is a scriptural subject of the ordinance. It might be worth 
while to mention that some Baptists who take pride in 
being somewhat exclusive try to make it appear that even 
more than penitence and belief in Jesus, on the part of 
the candidate, is necessary — that is, what they call an 
*' experimental knowledge of sins forgiven." But there is 
nothing in the scriptures about any such '* experimental 
knowledge" as a pre-requisite to baptism, and those who 
profess to have it have never succeeded in making any- 
thing intelligible of it. What is an '* experimental 
knowledge of sins forgiven ? " We are told that it is a cer- 
tain state of feeling, or condition of soul, and we have no 
right or inclination to call in question any one's state of 
feelings; for the feelings of a man are known only to 
'Hhe spirit of the man which is in him." But who is 
authorized to interpret any state of feeling as an *' evi- 
dence of sins forgiven ? " Forgiveness of sins is one of 
'* the things of God, that none knoweth save the Spirit of 
God." How are we to know the things in the miud of 
God ? The Apostle Paul tells us : *' But we [the apos- 

(265) 



266 Sweeney's sermons. 

ties] received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit 
which is of God ; that we might know the things that are 
freely given to us by God ; which things also ive speaky not 
in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the 
Spirit teacheth." (1 Cor. ii : 12, 13.) God conveys to 
us, then, a knowledge of the things in his mind, which he 
freely gives us, hy his Sjnrit^ in words ; so that no man is 
left to interpret a mere state of feeling as the evidence of 
sins forgiven. If each man's interpretation of his own 
state of feeling is the only evidence he has of his pardon, 
then it would be difficult to show what advantage, in this 
respect, the Christian has of the Jew, or of the Moham- 
medan, or of the Pagan; would it not? But we intend 
no discussion now of the evidence of pardon ; and refer to 
this matter only to pay a passing notice to a seeming 
exception to the general admission that a penitent believer 
in Jesus Christ is a scriptural subject of baptism. That's 
all now. 

While, as has been said, there is very general agreement 
that penitent believers are scri])tural subjects of baptism, 
some say that only such persons are. Then there are oth- 
ers who contend that infant children also are proper subjects 
of the ordinance. These are the two sides to the most impor- 
tant point of diflference on the question. It might be 
worth while to note the fact that those who believe in and 
practice infant baptism, so-called, are divided among 
themselves as to the extent of it, scripturally. Some con- 
fine the right of it to infants of believing parents ; others 
to infants of parents one of whom is a believer ; and oth- 
ers extend it to all infants. We shall not stop, however, to 
discuss these questions of difference among pedo-baptists, 
but will leave that to them ; while we shall discuss the pri- 
mary and more fundamental question as to whether any 



INFANT BAPTISM. 267 

infants are scriptural subjects of this ordinance. It being 
admitted generally by pedo-baptists that penitent believers 
who have not been baptized are proper subjects of the 
ordinance, the only question between them and disciples 
about the subject of baptism is as to the baptism of infants ; 
and in the discussion of this question, the disciples are in 
the negative. So that my discourse on the subject of bap- 
tism, if to any purpose at all, will really be one against 
infant baptism. 

METHODS OF PROOF. 

To establish such a practice as the baptism of infants, it 
has been held and it seems to me properly and correctly, 
that there are but three possible methods of proof — that 
is, of course, from the Protestant standpoint. With such 
persons as believe in high churchism, the authority of the 
church is all-sufficient. But with these I shall not reason 
in this discourse. If I w^ere going to argue with them 
about infant baptism, or about sprinldiug and jjouring for 
baptism, or about any one of several other questions, I 
should begin with the fundamental question of church 
authority. 

The three methods of proof among Protestants, then, 
are (1) Precept of scripture, (2) Example of scripture, 
and (3) Inference from scripture. By precept of script- 
ure is meant an express commandment, recorded in scrl})t- 
ure, either by our Lord himself or by some one unques- 
tionably authorized by him, tluit infints should be baj)- 
tized. Sucli a commaiKhnent would settle^ the (luestion in 
favor of the practice in the judgment of all who recognize 
the supreme authority of the scriptnres in all nuittei's of 
onr religion. By example of scrij)ture is mejint a iicordcd 
instance of the baptism of an infant with tlu^ a])j)i'(>val 
either of our Lord himself or any one of the inspired men 



268 Sweeney's sermons. 

of the New Testament. This also would settle the ques- 
tion iu favor of the practice with all who make the Bible 
the supreme authority upon the subject. By inference 
from scripture is meant a logical deduction from scripture 
either that infants were baptized by our Lord or some one 
or more of his authorized teachers in New Testament times, 
or that he or they said that they should be. 

But now of the first and second methods ; What can be 
claimed as to express scripture precept or example for the 
baptism of infants ? Let us attend to this question for a 
few moments. I am not going myself to answer this ques- 
tion, but to take the answer from pedo-baptists themselves, 
and from such as are confessedly eminent and scholarly 
among them. 

Bishop Burnet. — *' There is no express precept, or 
rule, given in the New Testament for baptism of infants." 
Exposit. of Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xxvii. 

Dr. Wall. — '* Among all the persons that are recorded 
as baptized by the Apostles there is no express mention of 
any infant." Hist. Inf. Bap. Introduct. p. 1. 

Luther. — ^' It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture 
that infant baptism was * instituted by Christ, or begun 
by the first Christians after the Apostles'." In A. R's. 
Vanity of Inf. Bap. part ii. p. 8. 

Samuel Palmer. — '* There is nothing in the words of 
the institution, nor in any after accounts of the adminis- 
tration of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants; 
there is not a single precept for nor example of this prac- 
tice through the whole New Testament." Ans. to Dr. 
Priestley's Address on the Lord's Supper, p. 7. 

Bishop Sanderson. — '*The baptism of infants, and 
the sprinkling of water in baptism instead of immersing 



INFANT BAPTISM. 269 

the whole body, must be exterminated from the Church, 
according to their principle; i. e., that nothing can be 
lawfully performed, much less required, in the affairs of 
religion which is not either commanded by God in the 
scripture, or at least recommended by a laudable example." 
De. Obligat. Conscient. Prelect iv. pp. 17, 18. 

Dr. Freeman. — ** The traditions of the whole Catholic 
church confirm us in many of our doctrines ; which, 
though they may be gathered out of scripture, yet are not 
laid down there in so many words : such as infant baptism, 
and of episcopal authority above presbyters." Preserva- 
tive against popery. Title iii : p. 19. 

Walker. — '' Where authority from the scripture fails 
there the authority of the church is to be held as a law. 
. . . It doth not follow that our Savior gave no pre- 
cept for the baptizing of infants, because no such precept 
is particularly expressed in the scripture; for our Savior 
spoke many things to his disciples concerning the kingdom 
of God, both before his passion and also after his resur- 
rection, w^hich are not written in the scriptures ; and who 
can say but that among those unwritten sayings of his, 
there might be an express precept for infant baptism." 
Modest Plea for Inf Bap. pp. 221, 368. 

Mr. Fuller. — '^ We do freely confess that there is 
neither express precept, nor precedent, in the New Testa- 
ment for the baptizing of infants. . . . There were 
many things which Jesus did which are not written ; 
among which, for aught appears to the contrary, the bap- 
tizing of these infants, [Luke xviii : 15, 16, 17,] might 
be one of them." Infants Advocate, pp. 71, 150. 

T have made these quotations second-liand, from a work 
by Abraham Bootli, entitkMl Pcdo-hapfi.^m Kxani'mrd, Vol. 
1, pp. 303-807. Booth was an IjioTisli Baptist. T liave 



270 Sweeney's sermons. 

never heard the correctness of his quotation;? questioned, 
though his work has been read and used for more than a 
half-century. I might read many more extracts, from 
pedo-baptist authors, of the same import, from the same 
volume, but what I have read are quite sufficient for my 
purpose. I would not be misunderstood as to the use of 
these authors. Most of them, while they accepted the 
scriptures as authoritative in religion, believed also in tra- 
dition and the authority of the church in such matters as 
the baptism of infants, etc. etc., as their own language 
shows. They were all pedo-baptists ; that is, they all 
believed in and practiced infant baptism ; but they did 
not claim any express scrij)ture precept or example in its 
support. And it is for this purpose — to show this fact — 
that I have adduced their writings. With them tradition 
and church authority were all-sufficient authority in such 
matters. And while they were, in a sense, Protestants, 
they did not fully endorse Avhat we now call the great 
principle of Protestantism — ^^that the Bible and the Bible 
alone is the religion of Protestants " — or if they did, they did 
not extend that principle to such matters as the baptizing of 
infants, and of sprinkling instead of immersing. The 
supposed unwritten sayings and acts of our Lord handed 
down to us by tlie church, and backed by its authority in 
such matters, was all the authority these men wanted for 
infant baptism and sprinkling for baptism. But such author- 
ity will not do for those who fully endorse and live up to 
the Protestant principle. If we are all to have the liberty 
of turning our imaginations loose among the supposed 
unwritten sayings and doings of our Lord and his apostles, 
we can exhume thence a good deal more than infant bap- 
tism. And if we are to trust the traditions and authority 
of the Catholic church in bringing down to us those 



INFANT BAPTISM. 271 

unwritten things, we shall not be able to stop short of 
popery and all its claims. 

In the next place, we shall see what some very eminent 
and scholarly pedo-baptists, who repudiate tradition and 
church authority altogether, have to say on the question as 
to scripture precept and example for infant baptism — some 
more recent writers than those quoted from Mr. Booth. 

I read first from the Southern Review [_M.et]iodhi] Vol. xiv: 
No. 30, pp. 334-336. In an article on the ' ' History of Infant 
Baptism" the editor, A. T. Bledsoe, LL. D., says : '' It is an 
article of our faith, that the baptism of young children 
[infants] is in anywise to be retained in the church, as most 
agreeable to the institution of Christ^ But yet, with all our 
searching we have been unable to find, in the New Testa- 
ment, a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant 
baptism. We justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground 
of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or 
his apostles. This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of 
our readers, a strange position for a pedo-baptist. It is by 
no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of 
learned pedo-baptists have come to the same conclusion ; 
especially since the New Testament has been subjected to 
a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis 
than was formerly practiced by controversialists." Then, 
to justify his statement that his was not ** a singular opin- 
ion," the writer cites other distinguished pedo-baptist writ- 
ers as follows : 

Knapp's Theology: — ^* There is no decisive example of 
this practice in the New Testament . . There is, there- 
fore, no express command for infant baptism found in the 
New Testament, as Moms justly concedes." (Vol. ii : 
p. 524.) 

Dr. Jacob: — ^'However reasonably we niiiy be con- 



272 Sweeney's sermons. 

vinced that we find in the Christian scriptures * the funda- 
mental idea from which infant baptism was afterward 
developed/ and by which it may now be justified, it ought 
to be distinctly acknowledged tlmt it is not an apostolic ordi- 
nance,^^ 

Neander : — ''Originally bai3tism was administered 
to adults ; nor is the general spread of infant baptism at a 
later period any proof to the contrary; for even after 
infant baptism had been set forth as an apostolic institu- 
tion, its introduction into the general practice of the 
church was but slow. Had it rested upon apostolic 
authority, there would have been a diflSculty in explain- 
ing its late approval, and that even in the third century, it 
was opposed by at least one eminent father of the church.'' 

Dr. Bledsoe, after making the quotations just read, 
adds : ** We might, if necessary, adduce the admission of 
many other profoundly learned pedo-baptists, that their 
doctrine is not found in the New Testament, either in 
express terras, or by implication from any portion of its 
language." And again he says : '' But what we wish, in 
this connection, to emphasize most particularly, is the 
wonderful contrast between the silence of Christ and the 
everlasting clamors of his church. Though he uttered not 
one express word on the subject of infant baptism, yet, 
on this very subject, have his professed followers filled the 
world with sound and fury. The apostles imitated his 
silence. But yet, in spite of all this, have the self-styled 
'successors of the apostles,' and the advocates of their 
claims, made the universal church, and all the ages, ring 
with controversies, loud and long and deep, respecting the 
rite of infant baptism." 

I will read one other testimony on this point — that is, 
showing that the eminent and scholarly among the pedo- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 273 

baptists, who do not accept the authority of the church or 
of traditioUj frankly concede that the practice in question 
has no scripture precept or example in its support. I read 
from a little volume entitled '' Doctrinal Tracts,^^ published 
for the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
church, containing an article on baptism prepared espe- 
cially for the volume, and to take the place of one by Mr. 
Wesley which had been published in the little volume for 
almost a generation before. The new tract was prepared 
by a committee appointed by Conference for that very pur- 
pose. Here is what that new tract says on the point in 
hand: 

*^They [anti-pedo-baptists] object that there is no 
explicit warrant for baptizing infants in the New Testa- 
ment, and they conclude that infants should not be bap- 
tized. By an explicit warrant they mean some express 
declaration either that infants should be or that they were 
baptized. . . . That there is no such explicit warrant for 
the baptism of infants is freely acknowledged." (Doct 
Tracts p. 250.) 

It is needless to multiply concessions on this point. 
Enough have been adduced to show that many of the 
most eminent and scholarly pedo-baptists admit what we 
claim, namely, that there is no express scripture precept 
or example for infant baptism. There are, we concede, 
many among the advocates of this practice, who, for want 
of the necessary information, it may be, or, possibly, for 
want of sufficient candor, refuse to make this admission. 
But such persons can do little else than wrangle about it. 
At any rate they have failed to show even to their own 
brethren the precept or example. 

LOGICAL INFERENCE, 

then, is the only remaining method of proof by which any 
18 



274 Sweeney's sermons. 

respectable effort can be made to sustain this practice. 
Hence said Dr. Bledsoe correctly and candidly : '^ We 
justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical 
inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his 
apostles." And now, what shall we say of this method of 
sustaining such a practice as the one in question ? Is 
** logical inference," be it ever so strong as such, a suffi- 
cient ground for it ? Has God made it the duty of Chris- 
tian parents to have their infant children baptized and 
left them to find out that such is their duty solely by log- 
ical inference ? In other words, has he made it their 
duty, without saying one word about it in his entire reve- 
lation to men ? Xow, if infant baptism were a thing of 
indifference, a mere matter of expediency, and hence one 
that needed no proof, then, I grant that we might accept 
and practice it solely on the ground of logical inference. 
But it is no matter of this kind. Any one can see that it 
is calculated to, and that to the extent of its prevalence it 
does, completely set aside the baptism of believers. If it 
ever comes to prevail universally over Christendom, then, 
thereafter there will be no such thing in Christendom as the 
baptism of believers. And there will stand the express icords 
of our Lord in the commission, " He that believes and is 
baptized," completely nullified — nullified, too, by a prac- 
tice justified solely on the ground of logical inference ! 
Infant baptism will then stand as the only institution 
under heaven having written upon it '^the name of the 
Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And it 
will stand solely on the ground of logical inference ! Can 
a logical inference do all this? If so, it seems to me that 
it ought to be no doubtful one. It ought to be such an 
inference as all logicians can see. And even then there 
would be a very grave if not insuperable difficulty about 



INFANT BAPTISM. 275 

it, arising out of the fact that all parents are not good 
logicians. Logic, I know, is supposed to be perfect ; but 
there are very few people who perfectly understand it. 
There are very few perfect logicians. People differ often 
and widely as to logical inferences. They often draw dif- 
ferent conclusions from the same premises — make differ- 
ent inferences from the same facts. This, true enough, 
may not be the fault of logic, but the misfortune of the 
people, that they are not all good logicians. 

There are inferences, I grant, so very plain that all 
responsible persons must see them. But is infant bap- 
tism supported by any such inferences ? Has there ever 
been a logical inference drawn in support of this practice 
that even all pedo-baptists could see ? I believe it can be 
shown that every inference that has ever been brought to 
support this practice has been disputed even by some who 
practice it. True, it may be, that they all justify their 
practice in their own estimation by inference, but they do 
not all agree on any one inference. There is no one infer- 
ence that is not disputed by some of them. Then how can 
they expect unbelievers in the practice to adopt it upon 
an inference that is so doubtful that it is disputed even by 
some who believe in the practice ? Some believe upon one 
inference, disputed by others ; and others believe upon 
another inference, disputed by some. And yet they 
would all have us believe upon such proof, that God has 
made it the duty of all Christian parents to have their 
children baptized. 

In the next place we shall notice a few of tlie arguments, 
or inferences, brought forward to support this practice. 
Here is one contributed by Dr. Bledsoe, in the same arti- 
cle from which we have already quoted his concession as 
to precept and example ; 



276 Sweeney's sermons. 

^* Since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, 
never doubted that children were to be introduced into the 
Israelitish church by circumcision, it was natural that 
they should include children also in baptism, if Christ did 
not expressly forbid it. . . It was not only natural 
that they should, it was absolutely certain that they would, 
include children in baptism, as the event has shown. Yet 
Christ foreseeing the event, did not forbid it. Hence it 
must have been agreeable to his will.'' There ! that's an 
inference which in the judgment of Dr. Bledsoe and some 
other great men is quite sufBcient to justify infant baptism. 
It has failed, however, to convince the doubters ; and is 
not satisfactory to all believers in infant baptism — believ- 
ers on other grounds. Let us see : It assumes that owing 
to the bias the custom of circumcising infant children 
under the former dispensation had given to their minds, 
^' the first disciples of Christ, as native Jew^s " began the 
practice of baptizing infants. But is this true? Do all 
pedo-baptists, even, accept it ? No indeed ! Let us hear 
Martin Luther on it: *'It cannot be proved by the 
sacred scripture that infant baptism was instituted by 
Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the ajjostles" As 
a matter of historical fact infant baptism was not begun 
by Jewish Christians at all ; but in Africa, and long after 
'* the first disciples of Christ" were dead. Many of the 
*' first disciples of Christ, as native Jews," with too strong 
a leaning to the circumcision of infant children, and to 
Mosaism generally, did a good many things they ought not 
to have done, and brought a good deal of trouble into the 
church of God ; but the introduction of infant baptism is 
not one of the sins they will have to answer for. Give 
every one his due. 

But the Doctor says, '' Christ foreseeing the event, did 



INFANT BAPTISM. 277 

not forbid it. Hence it must have been agreeable to his 
will." There is a sweeping inference for you ! If that 
justifies infant bai3tism, it must also justify every event 
foreseen and not forbidden by Christ. Logic is always 
fair. Those who undertake to inform us about the fore- 
knowledge of God — experts in this field — tell us that he 
foresaw all things that come to pass. Then all things that 
come to pass, which he has not expressly forbidden, are 
* 'agreeable to his will." But that proves too much for 
Dr. Bledsoe, or for anybody else, excepting perhaps some 
very old Calvinists: and, proving too much, it proves 
nothing at all. Just think of it I Setting aside the com- 
mand of God, that believers should be baptized, and jus- 
tifying the substitution of infant baptism for it **solely on 
the ground of logical inference," and no better inference 
than that ^'Christ foreseeing the event, did not forbid it: 
hence it must have been agreeable to his will! !" 

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM, 

Or, as our pedo-baptist friends prefer to call it, *'the 
inference from the baptism of whole families recorded in 
the New Testament." Among the unlearned of tlie rank 
and file there is perhaps no inference more confideutly re- 
lied on as justifying the practice in question than this one. 
With them a househohl means exactly a family, in the 
modern sense; and a family always includes at least one 
infant; family baptism therefore involves infant baptism, 
as one of the inexorable necessities of logic. Well, lot us 
see about it. 

It has never yet been shown, that anybody knows of, 
that the word **house" or ^'lionsehold," (from tlio same 
Greek word,) in the New Testament, ever means inmily, 
in the sense of ])arents, or j)arent and children. This has 



278 Sweeney's sermons. 

only been assumed ; and assumed, too, contrary to very 
significant facts. It is a fact, that when a writer of New 
Testament times meant to include little children in any 
statement, he did not rely upon the word house or house- 
hold to do it ; but even where the word house was used, 
he would use other words in the same sentence to indicate 
little children. Of course, I speak not now of writers in 
the New Testament, but of writers as nearly contempora- 
neous as we can get. Let us read a few^ examples from 
the ' 'Pastor of Hermas," a production of Hermas, the same, 
most likely, mentioned by Paul, (Rom. xvi : 14. J as his 
contemporary. In his work, divided into Commandments 
and Chapters, Hermas says : 

'^Now I say to you, if you do not keep them, but neg- 
lect them, you will not be saved, nor your children, nor 
your house.^' (Com. xii : Chap. 3.) Again he says: 
**These things, therefore, shall you thus observe with your 
children, and all your houseJ^ (Similitude v: Chap. 3.) 
Once more, the same writer says : *^Only continue hum- 
ble, and serve the Lord in all purity of heart, you and 
your cluldren, and your house J^ (Sim. vii.) 

A little later lived Ignatius, the father of Episcopacy. 
He wrote a letter to Polycarp, and in that epistle (Chap, 
viii.) he says, **I salute all by name, and in particular 
the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children,^' 
Now, we can get no nearer the New Testament writers on 
this side than these writers take us, and we see that by 
**house" they did not mean '^children." When they 
meant to include children they said children, even though 
it was the next word after house and in the same sentence. 
And what has been said of these writers immediately suc- 
ceeding the New Testament was true of Moses. He says : 
(Gen. xlvii: 24.) ''Ye shall give the fifth part unto Pha- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 279 

raoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the 
field, and for your food, and for them of your households 
and for food for your little ones,'^ Here we find Moses the 
giver of God's law, using the word '^household" as not in- 
cluding * 'little ones." When he means both * 'house- 
holds" and 'little ones," he says both in the same sentence. 

These quotations are sufl[icient to show that the word 
"house" or "household" did not necessarily include "chil- 
dren" or "little ones," as, when they were meant to be 
included in any statement, they were named in addition to 
household in the same statement, and in the same sen- 
tence. Just what the writers of those times did mean to 
include in the word household we may not be able to de- 
termine to our entire satisfaction : nor is it necessary that 
we should do so to refute the pedo-baptists in their effort 
to infer infant baptism from the baptism of households, 
which is all I am aiming to do. 

While on this question about households let us go a 
little further, and examine its use in the New Testament. 

1. In Acts x: 2, Luke, speaking of Cornelius, the 
centurion, says he was "a devout man, and one that 
feared God wath all his house." This language precludes 
the idea of infant children in the house of Cornelius, by 
predicating of "all his house" what infants are clearly in- 
capable of. He feared God with all his house. 

2. In Acts xviii: 8, we are told that, "Crispus, the 
chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with 
all his house." Here again, clearly, infants are precluded, 
'dsfaifh is predicated of "all his house." Infants could 
not have "believed on the Lord." 

8. In Acts xvi: 32-84, "And they [Pniil nnd Silas] 
S})ake unto him [tlie jailor at Pliilippi] tlie word of the 
Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took 



280 Sweeney's sermons. 

them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; 
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when 
he had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." 
In this case, the word of the Lord was spoken to all in the 
house ; and all ^'rejoiced, believing in God." No infants in 
this house. 

4. In Acts xvi: 15, we are told of Lydia that '*she was 
baptized and all her house." There is nothing said here 
either to include or preclude infants. We have a :ight to 
demand, however, in view of what w^e have seen as to use 
of house and household, that they should be named, before 
granting that they are included in the statement here 
made. We have also the further right, to turn back and 
read the commission under which the apostles were work- 
ing : "Preach the gospel to every creature: he that be- 
lieves and is baptized shall be saved." The presumption is 
that they didn't transcend the authority given by that 
commission. We have a right to note the fact that Lydia, 
was "of the city of Thyatira;" that consequently she was 
a long way from home, trading in purple at Philippi, and 
that even if she was a married woman, and even if she was 
a mother, and even if any one or more of her children 
were infants, she would not likely have them with her. 
And this is the only case of household baptism on which 
pedo-baptist debaters now make any stand at all ! 

5. Paul says, (1. Cor. 1 : 16) "I baptized also the house- 
hold of Stephanas." No word or words added to include 
infants, as was the custom when they were meant to be in- 
cluded, as we have seen. 

Now, we have a right to the commission here also. 
And we have a right also to read the account of Paul's 
visit to Corinth where he baptized Crispus, Gains, and the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 281 

'^household of Stephanas", as given in Acts xviii: 7, 8. 
Here it is: *^And he [Paul] departed thence and entered 
into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that wor- 
shiped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. 
And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed on 
the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians 
hearing, believed and were baptized." This stateioent, no 
doubt, included ^'the household of Stephanas." If so, 
they * 'hearing, believed and were baptized." 

There is another fact in connection with this ' 'household 
of Stephanas" that ought to be noted, which brings us to 
another instance of the use of household in the New Testa- 
ment. 

6. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the same in 
which he says he baptized the household of Stephanas, 
the apostle speaks again of this same ''house," on this 
wise: (xvi : 15, 16) "I beseech you, brethren, as ye 
know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of 
Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the min- 
istry of the saints, that ye submit yourselves unto such." 

Now, this epistle was written not more than five years 
after Paul's first visit to Corinth, when he baptized the 
^'household of Stephanas;" and here he speaks of the 
"house of Stephanas" as having "addicted themselves to 
the ministry of the saints," and tells the brethren there to 
"submit yourselves unto such." If the persons here in- 
cluded in the house of Stephanas were infants, any of 
them, when baptized five years before, they had come up 
to the "ministry of the saints" pretty ra})idly. So much 
on this passage as it relates to the ba])tism of the house of 
Stephanas. Then, secondly, wo certainly have here an- 
other use of "house" from winch iiiiants are precluded. 

We have noticed six New Testament liousc^holds, now, 



282 Sweeney's sermons. 

and have seen that from five of them, the very language 
in which they are described, excludes infants. And in 
the other case, ihatof Lydia, the circumstances are strongly 
against our pedo-baptist friends in the use they attempt 
to make of it. Can infant baptism be justified by such 
an inference as this is? Why, many learned pedo-bap- 
tists themselves admit the insufficiency of it. For in- 
stance, in Knapp's Theology, it is said: ^ There is no de- 
cisive example of this practice in the New Testament; 
for it may be objected against those passages where the 
baptism of whole families is mentioned, (viz : Acts x : 42- 
48; xvi: 15-33; 1. Cor. i: 16.) that it is doubtful whether 
there were any children in those families, and if there were, 
whether they were then baptized'' — (Vol. ii, p. 524.) So that 
even in this great pedo-baptist's estimation this inference 
is doubly doubtful : doubtful whether any infants were in 
the households; and if there were, doubtful whether they 
were then baptized. Can an inference thus confessedly 
doubly doubtful be relied on to convince the unbeliever in 
the practice ? 

INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMCISION. 

Just what the argument is, in this case, it is not easy to 
state right definitely and satisfactorily. It has nothing 
like the antiquity of other inferences for the practice in 
question, and it has been relied on mostly by controver- 
sialists in the discussions of the question, in later years. 
These controversialists are by no means agreed among 
themselves as to what the argument is. In their discussions 
they have a good deal to say about the church, as to when 
and where it began, differing among themselves as widely 
as from Abel to Abraham. They claim that the church 
of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new, in 
some sense; but as to what sense and to what extent 



INFANT BAPTISM. 283 

the alleged identity obtains they again differ among them- 
selves widely, holding nothing in common that needs to be 
replied to by the opponent of infant 1)aptism. They 
very generally contend that in some sense — and here there 
is no agreement among them as to what sense — baptism 
now stands to its subject and the church as circumcision 
did under the former dispensation. They generally agree 
that as infants were circumcised under the former dispen- 
sation they ought to be baptized under the Christian dispen- 
sation. The strong point, the one in which they all agree, 
is that infants were circumcised by the command of God 
under the former dispensation. They all emphasize this 
unquestioned fact; and seem to think there ought to be 
something in it, somewhere or somehow in favor of infant 
baptism; but just what, or just how, or just where, they 
are by no means of one mind. Some of them have it, that 
circumcision was initiative to the church under the former 
dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now ; and that 
infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should 
now be initiated by baptism. Others tell us that circum- 
cision was only a recognition — or declaration — of church 
membership under the former dispensation ; and that bap- 
tism is a recognition, or declaration, of membership now; 
and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so bap- 
tism ought to be. They go on to argue, that infants were 
put in the church when it was organized in the family of 
Abraham — that is, such as say the church was then or- 
ganized — and that no law has since been given for putting 
them out; and that they were then initiated (some say — 
others, that their memborship was recognized) by circum- 
cision ; and that as baptism has superseded circumcision, 
infants should now be initiated (or recognized) by bap- 
tism. Tliat is about the process of tlie argument. Now, 



284 Sweeney's sermons. 

the great strength and merit of this argument is, that it is 
of such a character as to open up an immense field for 
pedo-baptist debaters to skirmish in. They can find a 
good deal to say about ''covenants," about "churches," 
about ''ordinances," and occasionally something about "in- 
fants;" and the field is large enough for them to find a 
good deal to talk about without having anything to say 
about "infant baptism'' — the weak point in their line of 
battle. 

I have seen and heard a good many of the champions of 
infant baptism tug through the tedious processes of this 
alleged argument from the covenants, and church identity, 
and circumcision, with all the variations; and I have 
never yet heard it without finding my mind impressed 
most of all with the question : Is it possible that the God 
of infinite wisdom has made it the duty of Christian par- 
ents to have their infant children baptized and left them 
to find out that it is their duty by such a process as this? 
It seems to me that this question alone ought to condemn 
the alleged argument forever in the estimation of sensible 
and fair-minded people. Other insuperable objections to 
the argument are. 

1. "The covenant of circumcision" (Acts vii : 8) was a 
covenant "in the flesh" of Abraham and his descendants, 
(Gen. xvii: 12, 13); while the the "new covenant" is in 
the spirit, and knows no flesh. (Heb. viii : 8-12) The 
covenant of circumcision embraced Abraham, and such as 
were born in his house and bought with his money ; while 
the new covenant embraces believers in Jesus Christ, with- 
out respect to Abraham's flesh or money, or anybody else's 
flesh or money. (2. Cor. v: 16, 17,— Gal. iii: 26-29). 

2. When God wanted parents to have their children 
circumcised in the old covenant, he said so in so many 



INFANT BAPTISM. 285 

words: **And he that is eight days old shall be cir- 
cumcised among you." (Gen. xvii: 12.) Had he wanted 
infant children baptized in the new covenant, he would have 
said so, undoubtedly. Let us try a pedo-baptist argument 
just here, for their benefit : The Lord certainly foresaw 
that many Christian parents would refuse to have their in- 
fants baptized without either a scripture precept or exam- 
ple, yet, '^foreseeing the event," he did not give the com- 
mand. * 'Hence it must have been agreeable to his will" 
that they should so refuse. How will that do for an in- 
ference against infant baptism ? 

3. Under the former covenant only male infants, born 
of Abraham's flesh or bought with his money, were cir- 
cumcised ; while under the new covenant pedo-baptists 
contend for the baptism of infants without respect to sex, 
fleshy or money! How is that for identity! and for baptism 
instead of circumcision? 

4. If the church is one and the same under both dispensa- 
tions, and baptism now sustains the same relation to it that 
circumcision did under the former dispensation, then why 
were all circumcised persons commanded to be baptized as 
well as uncircumcised ones? Why were the Jews twice 
initiated into the church — or twice recognized? Could 
they not hold over from the old to the new dispensation 
(the church being the same) in virtue of their initiation 
or recognition by circumcision?" They didn't. And as 
they didn't hold over was there not a loss of identity ? 
Either there was a loss of identity, or the church held 
over from one dispensation to the other without mem hers. 

Let us hear what one of the most eminent and scholarly 
of all American pcd()-ba})tists had to say on this i}ifnruce 
from circumcinon. I mean Moses Stuart, Professor of 
Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andovor. 



286 Sweeney's sermons. 

He says: *^How unwary, too, are many excellent men in 
contending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish 
analogy of circumcision. . . Numberless difficulties pre- 
sent themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue 
in such a manner as this." — Com. O. T. ch. 22. And 
again he says: *'The covenant of circumcision furnishes 
no ground for infant baptism" — Lecture on Gal. 
inference from original sin. 

After all, this is the real ground of the practice. It 
was on this ground that it was first brought into the 
church, about the beginning of the third century, and on 
this ground it was defended down to the beginning of the 
nineteenth century. ''If infants are guilty of original sin 
then are they proper subjects of baptism," said John 
Wesley, and that was the ground on which its advocates 
put it from its origin. It was brought in as a deduction, 
and has been justified by the same deduction or inference 
throughout its history until within the last forty or fifty 
years. Of course, I do not mean that it was a deduction 
from original sin alone, but that that doctrine was one of 
the premises from which it was deduced. The other was 
baptism for remission of sins. From these premises in- 
fant baptism was a conclusion. 

At the time infant baptism first appears in history, 
about the beginning of the third century, baptism as a 
necessity to salvation was universally taught. The church 
fathers not only accepted fully the words of our Lord and 
his apostles upon this subject, but many of them went 
further and ascribed to the water of baptism an intrinsic 
virtue to wash away sins and purify the soul. In fact, 
that was a time in the history of the church when almost 
everything was carried to an extreme. If there were any 
very safe and conservative men among the church fathers 



INFANT BAPTISS. 287 

they didn't write any ; or, if they did, their writings have 
not been preserved. 

Now, ''He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
(Markxvi: 16.) is scripture. ''Kepent and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins," (Acts, ii: 38.) is scripture also. ''Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God," (John iii : 5.) is scripture too. 
"Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on 
the name of the Lord," (Acts xxii : 16.) is another pas- 
sage of holy scripture. And, "Baptism doth also now 
save us," (1. Pet. iii: 21.) is still another passage, bearing 
upon the same subject. They are all plain. They are all 
true, of course. But it will be observed that none of 
these scriptures ascribe any intrinsic virtue to the water of 
baptism. It is in itself nothing. Baptism is what it is, 
is all that these scriptures ascribe to it, as an expression of 
faith in Jesus Christ, as an act of obedience and loyalty to 
him — as a trustful submission to the divine will. But the 
church fathers, among other extravagancies and vagaries 
began, in the second century to ascribe to this ordinance a 
virtue even dissociated from faith, or anything else in the 
creature — an intrinsic virtue for purification from sin. 

About this time the doctrine of original sin came in. 
This, too, was an exaggeration and perversion of scripture 
teaching. According to many of the leading church 
fathers, everybody was born a sinner; that h, guilty of 
Adam^s sin. Infants were all sinners at birth — guilty of 
Adam's first sin, and for that reason must be damned for- 
ever, if not washed, or regenerated. Ba})tisni was the 
washing of regeneration. Infants must be waslied. There- 
fore infants must be ba])tized. These are the premises 
and the conclusion ! Tliat's the logic of infant baptism, 



288 Sweeney's sermons. 

as every one acquainted with its history knows. When 
thus reduced to a syllogism both premises are felse. And 
that's a good deal to be the matter with a syllogism. Bap- 
tism dissociated from faith in Jesus Christ saves nobody, 
is not for remission of sins to anybody ; nor is it the wash- 
ing of the regeneration. So that the doctrine of baptism 
for remission of sins, as interpreted by the church fathers 
of that time, was false. So also was their doctrine of 
original sin. And both premises being talse, of course the 
conclusion was also. 

On this question as to the origin of the practice in ques- 
tion it is worth while to spend a little time. The first 
mention, in any form, of infant baptism was in the first 
quarter of the third century, and by Tertullian, one of the 
most distinguished of the Latin fathers. On this point, 
says Dr. Bledsoe, in an article already cited in this dis- 
course: '^Tertullian is the first writer in the church who 
makes any express mention of the custom of infant bap- 
tism. Before his time, A. D. 200, there is not an allu- 
sion to the custom from which its existence may be fairly 
inferred." (Southern Eeview, Vol. xiv, p. 339.) Now, 
Tertullian opposed the practice ; and here are his words, 
as translated by the distinguished pedo-baptist, Dr. Wall, 
in his Hist, of Lift. Bapt. Vol. i: p. 94.: '^Our Lord 
says indeed, do not forbid them to come. Therefore let 
them come w^hen they are grown up ; let them come when 
they understand ; when they are instructed whither it is 
that they come ; let them be made Christians when they 
can know Christ. ' JVJiat need their guiltless age make such 
haste to the forgiveness of sins!'" I have made this quo- 
tation mainly for this la^t sentence, in which this eminent 
father argues the needlessness of baptizing infants from 
* 'their guiltless age." He didn't believe infants were guilty 



INFANT BAPTISM. 289 

of sin. He opposed baptizing them. He grounded his 
opposition, certainly in part, upon his notion of '^their 
guiltless age." 

Now Origen wrote in the same quarter of the third cen- 
tury. They were contemporaries. The one lived and 
wrote at Carthage ; the other at Alexandria. They w^ere 
the most eminent fathers of the age. Origen advocated 
infant baptism, and was the first man to do so, that any- 
body knows of. Let us see on what he grounds it. 
(Wairs Hist. Inft. Bapt. Vol. i; pp. 104, 105.) Here 
are his words: ^^If there were nothing in infants that 
wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would 
be needless to them." And again he says: * 'Having occa- 
sion given in this place, I will mention a thing that causes 
frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are bap- 
tized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when 
have they sinned ? Or how can any reason of the laver in 
their case hold good, but according to that sense that we 
mentioned even now : none is free from pollution though 
his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth? 
And it is for that reason because by the sacrament of bap- 
tism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants 
are baptized." There is no mistaking the ground on which 
Origen puts the new custom, in the words we have read. 
He puts it on the ground tluit infants need ^^forgiveness." 
He admits that otherwise ^'baptism would be needless to 
them." There stand the two great fathers! One believes 
infants are sinners, and hence need the grace of baptism ; 
the other believes infants are guiltless, and that the grace 
of baptism is needless to them. Can anything bo })lainer 
than that the ground of the practice — the ''reason," as 
Origen puts it — was original sin; that is, that infants one 
day old were sinners, and needed the ''grace of baptism" 
19 



290 Sweeney's sermons. 

for forgiveness. This, too, it should be remembered is the 
begiiiDing of the custom. We have gotten back to the 
origin of the custom, and to the original ground of it. If 
anyone doubts that the custom was iiew when Origen 
wrote, read his words again: "I will mention a thing," 
says he, ' 'that csiuses frequent inquiries among the brethren." 
Then, his answer shows the nature of these ''inquiries." 
Here is the answer: ''Infants are baptized for the forgive- 
ness of sins." The inquiries must have been, " Tf7i?/ are 
you baptizing infants^ Origen was a very great man in 
the church, and lived in the very great city of Alex- 
andria ; and the doctrine that infants are all guilty of sin 
from their birth, had brought in the custom of baptizing 
infants; and it being new, "caused frequent inquiries 
among the brethren" of the smaller towns and rural 
districts. 

It is worth while for us, w^hile standing here with Ter- 
tullian and Origen ; the one opposing this custom because 
infants were in his estimation " guiltless ; " the other advo- 
cating it, because they were in his estimation sinful and 
in need of forgiveness — the custom a ?i€i^' one, and 
therefore, causing its advocate to be plied w^ith " fre- 
quent inquiries among the brethren " — it is worth w^hile, 
from this standpoint, to look back toward the apostles, and 
see if the history we have affords us anything bearing 
upon our subject. Do the earlier fathers — earlier than 
TertuUian and Origen — teach that infants are sinners. 
They do not. Hear Hermas, one of the apostolic fathers, 
who, it is supposed, saw and heard the apostle Paul : (Pas- 
tor of Hermas, chap, xxix.) " And they that believed from 
the twelfth mountain which was white, are the following : 
They are as infant children in ivhose hearts no evil originates.'' 

Barnabas (not later than the middle of the second cen- 



INFANT BAPTISM. 291 

tury) says : ** He hath made us after another pattern, 
that we should possess the soul of children," (Epistle, chap. 
vi) These references to infant children — and others might 
be cited — by writers between the apostles and the beginning 
of the third century show that the doctrine of original sin 
had not yet come in ; and no such thing as infant baptism 
is mentioned in that period. The first two centuries of 
the Christian era are as silent as the grave on the custom 
of infant baptism ; and on the necessity for it, the guilt of 
infants. 

The fathers of the second century were as silent about 
infant baptism and infant guilt as the apostles were ; and 
''the apostles," as Dr. Bledsoe w^ould say, ''imitated the 
silence of Christ" upon the subject. 

But now taking our stand with Origen and Tertullian 
and looking this way, we see the doctrine of original sin 
and the custom of infant baptism spreading, and, like a 
mighty river, flowing on down the ages, sweeping every- 
thing before it, east and west, until it reaches the nine- 
teenth century — the doctrine and the custom always going 
together, as the foundation and the structure built there- 
upon. 

So intimately and indi8solul)]y were the doctrine of the 
sinfulness and guilt of infants, and the custom of baptiz- 
ing them, linked together in the teaching of the whole 
Catholic churcli in the centuries following Origen that in 
the latter part of the fourth century when Pelagius denied 
that infants were by nature sinful in such a sense as to be 
liable to eternal damnation if they died unbaptized, he was 
accused of denying the right of infants to baptism ; that 
is, he was accused of denying infant baptism because he 
denied the doctrine which was the sole ground of it in the 
Catholic church at that time. Hence this disliuLiuished 



292 Sweeney's sermons. 

heretic said iu his letter to Pope Innocent: (Wall's Hist, 
of Inft. Bap. Vol. 1, p. 450.) *'Men slander me as if I 
denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, or did prom- 
ise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the 
redemption of Christ." But the renowned Augustin 
understood liim more accurately than many others ; and 
he says, speaking of him and those who agreed with him : 
** So that the thing he complains he is slandered in, he has 
set down so as that he might easily answer to the crime 
objected, and yet keep his opinion. But the thing that is 
objected to them is this, that they will not own that 
unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the 
first man and that there has passed upon them original sin, 
which is to be cleansed by regeneration ; but do contend 
that they are to be baptized only for their receiving tlie 
kingdom of heaven, etc.". (Ibid 447.) These quotations 
show that it w^as at that time a heresy — ^or as Augustin puts 
it, a ^^ crime" — not to ''own that unbaptized infants are 
liable to the condemnation of the first man ; " and that 
one not so owning was set down as denying the right of 
baptism to infants, because he denied the doctrine upon 
which it was universally grounded. There was at that 
time no other knowm reason why any one should believe 
in infant baptism than the doctrine of original sin. If one 
denied that doctrine, he was at once set down as opposed 
to infant baptism. Now, would this have been the case 
had infant baptism been instituted by Jesus or his apostles 
and practiced from the beginning ? It is not reasonable to 
suppose that it would. Had it been grounded upon the 
authority of Jesus or his apostles, and practiced from the 
beginning, as the baptism of believers, it would not have 
been necessary for the church councils of the third century 
to be settling questions about it and adjusting it to the 



INFANT BAPTISM. 293 

common practice, as we know they had to do. Neither 
would Origen have been under the necessity of answering 
' ^ frequent inquiries among the brethren " as to why 
*' infants are baptized." 

Thus infant baptism came into the church with the doc- 
trine of original sin, and thus it came down through the 
ages into the nineteenth century. 

Now let us see how it was grounded in the early part of 
this century. John Wesley may be said to have repre- 
sented the views of the English church as well as of the 
Methodist church of which he was the acknowledged 
founder. I read from a little volume entitled ^' Doctrinal 
Tracts, published by order of the General Conference " 
of the Methodist Episcopal church. The preface to the 
edition from which I read says : * ' Several new Tracts are 
included in this volume, and Mr. Wesley's short treatise 
on baptism is substituted in the place of the extract from 
Mr. Edwards on that subject." From this '' short treatise 
of baptism" by Mr. Wesley, I read, showing the ground 
of infant baptism as Mr. Wesley understood it when he 
wrote it, and as the General Conference understood it, 
when in 1832, it ordered its publication in the Doctriiud 
Tracts. 

Mr. Wesley says: ^^ But the grand question is, who 
are the proper subjects of baptism ? grown persons only, 
or infants also ? In order to answer this fully, I shall, 
first, lay down the grounds of infant baptism, taken from 
scripture, reason, and primitive, iniivcrsaJ practice." 
Then he says : ** As to the grounds of it: If infants are 
guilty of original sin, tlu^n are tliey pro})er subjects of bap- 
tism ; seeing in the ordinary way they cannot bo saved 
unless this be waslied awny by baptism. It has been 
already proved that this original stain cleaves to every 



294 Sweeney's sermons. 

child of iiiau ; and that hereby they are children of wrath, 
and liable to eternal damnation." (Doct. Tracts, p. 
251.) There it is! just as it started out in the first quar- 
ter of the third century, ^vhen Origen was so pressed by 
" frequent inquiries among the brethren." And notice, Mr. 
Wesley says, that the ground of it is taken from ^'univer- 
sal practice" — that is, " primitive, universal practice." 

And in accordance with Mr. Wesley's teaching, the 
Ritual for baptism in the Discipline of the Methodist 
church puts it upon the same ground, — or, rather, did put 
it upon the same ground, almost in Mr. Wesley's words, 
until within the last twenty-five or thirty years. The 
Ritual has been considerably modified of late years. And, 
no doubt, the good work of modification will go on, as 
there is still room for improvement. 

It is due to Protestant pedo-baptists as well as to the 
subject in hand to say that they have very generally aban- 
doned the doctrine of original sin as the ground of infant 
baptism ; and as fast as they can, they are getting it and 
all correlated notions out of their creeds and rituals. And 
in so doing they are leaving infant baptism without any 
ground or reason or meaning. In the ages from Origen 
down to Wesley it meant something to baptize an infant. 
It meant ^^ salvation from the condemnation of the first 
man." It meant that they might be " delivered from the 
wrath of God." It meant regeneration. Now, however, 
it doesn't mean much. The ground of it is gone, and it 
is a castle in the air. It is an empty ceremony. One 
advocate, nowadays, grounds it upon one thing and 
another upon another. One says infants are saved and 
are members of the church, and as such have a right to 
baptism. Another says they are saved by the grace of 
God in Christ Jesus, and should be baptized to bring them 



INFANT BAPTISM. 295 

into the church. Another says they are all in the '* invis- 
ible church," and ought to be baptized into the ^Wisible 
church." Every Protestant pedo-baptist scribe or debater 
puts the practice upon a ground to suit him. 

No wonder the people are losing faith in the custom. 
No wonder we see in the papers frequently and hear from 
the pulpits complaints that the baptism of infants is being 
neglected — is in many parts of the country falling into 
desuetude. It is about as hard to hold up a custom with- 
out meaning, without any reason for it, as to hold up a 
house against the winds without any foundation. It will 
have to go where Protestantism prevails. The abandon- 
ment of the doctrine of original sin is the death knell of 
infant baptism. It is only a question of time. 



SERMON XIV. 



A PLEA FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD. 

THIS is an age of growth. It is astonishing, when one 
stops a moment to think of it, how much of that 
which makes our civilization better than barbarism has 
been brought in within the lifetime of many of our old 
men — well, within the last seventy-five or eighty years, 
we will say. It seems to us, in the light of our age, with 
everything whirring and buzzing about us, doing the 
world's business by the power of steam and electricity, a 
wonder that our ancestors were for centuries and even 
thousands of years piddling along, doing almost nothing, 
barely scratching a meagre sustenance out of the earth, 
when all the while there was so much in it. 

This is an age of schemes, of movements, of associations, 
of orders, of societies, all meant, of coui^e, for the good 
of the people, for the betterment of society generally. 
Upon every good idea, and for reaching every good end, 
for the correction of every wrong and for the suppression 
of every great evil, we have already, or are likely to have 
in the near future, a special society organized, or associa- 
tion formed, officered and equipped for that special work. 
It is amazing, when one gives a thought to it, how many 
societies — political, moral, benevolent and religious socie- 
ties— rhave been conceived and brought into the world 
w ithin even the last half century, all intended to improve 
society and bless the world, and some of them to gloriiy 
God also. In our churches, composed of their members, 
(296) 



A PLEA FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD. 297 

we have societies organized, with their pledges and con- 
stitutions and laws, until half the alphabet is used for 
the initials of their names ; and the work of forming so- 
cieties is still going on. A new one is brought forth 
almost every day. We have societies or associations for 
the different sexes, for all ages, and for all conditions of 
men and women. If a young man wants Christian * * as- 
sociation" for reading, rest or work, here is the Y. M. C. A. 
for him. If young Christians want to work for Christ, 
and are not certain they are capable of doing much, but 
are willing to endeavor, here is the Y. P. S. C. E. for 
them. If our Christian women wish to work especially 
in the good cause of temperance, here is the W. C. T. U. 
for them ; and so on and so forth — a society or association 
for every good work and for the suppression of every great 
evil in the world. 

What should be the attitude of the members of the 
church of God toward all these things? There are 
many people who decide this question very readily, some 
one way and some another. For myself, I have had 
some difficulty in deciding it to my own satisfaction. 

Before going further in what I have to say about socie- 
ties, specially religious societies, let me say a few words 
about the church, as to what I understand it to be, and to 
be for. The church of God, in its most comprehensive 
sense, includes all real believers in Jesus Christ, of all 
sexes, ages, colors, countries — and worlds. Of the church 
in this broad sense there is no organization further than 
that Christ is the head and all believers are membei*s of 
his body. It has no officers. It is a union like that of 
the vine and its branches. The bond of union is faith in 
Jesus Christ. 

But church in the Now Testament has another sense, 



298 Sweeney's sermons. 

less comprehensive and more limited locally. In this sense 
the word is used in the plural — as '^then had the churches 
rest," **the churches of Chri&t salute you," *'all the 
churches of the Gentiles," ''as in all churches of the 
saints," ''the churches of God which are in Judea," etc. 
The churches in their local sense are composed of mem- 
bers of the church in the more comj^rehensive sense, in 
cities, towns and neighborhoods, associated together for 
the purposes of work, edification and enjoyment. This 
local association of disciples, with officers to oversee and 
serve them, is the only church organization — if I may use 
that word — known to the Kew Testament. Nor were 
these local churches associated together in any organic 
sense. They were entirely independent of each other, 
further than that the members of all were spiritually 
united by the bonds of a common faith, hope and love. 
The ecclesiasticisms of our day are all younger than the 
church of God. Now, anyone who is a member of the 
church of God in its broadest sense, and a member of the 
church in its local sense, needs to belong to no other so- 
ciety, or association, or organization of a religious kind, 
in order to his usefulness or happiness in life, being thus 
furnished with all the means and instrumentalities for 
doing all the good he can do, and with all the association 
necessary for his edification and happiness. Such an one 
needs to do no more joining as to religious societies in 
order to his usefulness, happiness and salvation. I speak 
of the church member's necessity and dnty, and not of his 
Christian IxbeHy. Of that hereafter. As a member of 
the church he is thoroughly panoplied and furnished for 
the battle of life. The church furnishes all the society 
and all the means and instrumentalities he needs. 

The question then arises. What should be the attitude 



A PLEA FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD. 299 

of the member of the church of God toward all other re- 
ligious associations and societies than the church ? This 
question is not one to be hastily and inconsiderately an- 
swered. It is one of no little importance. Certainly 
Christians should not oppose or stand in the way of any 
good Avork being done by any person, or association of 
persons. They should carefully avoid the appearance of 
doing so. Political parties, even, advocate some good 
measures and do some good things. This will not be de- 
nied. Christians should not be found opposing any good 
they are aiming to do. 

The societies and orders of a moral and benevolent 
character — Masons, Odd Fellows, etc. — perhaps without 
exception, do some good, and Christians should be careful 
not to oppose them in any good work. And the many 
religious societies of our day, other than the church, are 
aiming to do good, and are doing some good beyond ques- 
tion. Christians should offer no resistance to any good 
work they are doing. Their methods may be in some re- 
spects objectionable, and they may do some things that 
might better not be done ; still. Christians should be very 
careful to say nothing and do nothing that can be con- 
strued into opposition to the good they do. The disciples 
once saw a man casting out demons in the name of Jesus, 
and forbade him because he followed not with them, and 
when they reported this to their Master, he rebuked them, 
saying: '^Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is 
for us." We should not forbid anyone working a uood 
work because he does not follow with us. 

In the secon<i place: It is the Christian's liberty to 
show his approval of any good work, though uoi douv by 
Christians, and though hecaniiot appi'ovc^ all tlu^ nu^tliods 
by which it was done. As a citizeu of this Nation, the 



300 Sweeney's sermons. 

Christian has the right to vote — that is, the Christian man — 
and for myself I frequently exercise this right. When I 
see a political party advocating a good thing, or opposing 
an evil one, I consider that party to that extent on my 
side, and allow it to vote with me. If a political party 
proposes to cast out a demon, so to speak, I shall certainly 
not forbid it. If a political party gets on the right side 
of any moral question, it gets on our side. If it makes 
war upon any of the evils of the day, it lights on our 
side ; and on all such questions we can fight together, 
though that party may do and advocate many things we 
do not like. The party that votes against slavery, the 
party that votes against polygamy, the party that votes 
against whisky, the party that votes against lotteries and 
pools, is to that extent on our side, and we can vote to- 
gether, though we may not belong to any political party, 
nor the party belong to the church. We belong to the 
army of the Lord, enlisted, pledged, initiated, sworn in, 
to fight for life or during the war against all evil and for 
all good ; but we should not despise any assistance from 
those who may choose to fight the evils we are fighting, 
simply because they do not belong to the regular army. 
Let them fight on our side if they wish to. They are 
helping us. We are pledged to our Leader. We belong 
to his army — the church. We are soldiers under him, 
the great Prince of our salvation. AYe are panoplied 
with the whole armor of God. The weapons of our war- 
fare, as Christians, are not carnal, but mighty through 
God for the pulling down of the strongholds of sin in 
every shape and form. We are contending for more than 
are any of the political parties, or any of the moral, be- 
nevolent or religious societies. ^'Whatsoever things are 
true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are 



A PLEA FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD. 301 

just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are 
lovely, whatsoever things are of good report," for these 
we contend. We are fighting against sin and evil all 
along the line. Any person or party fighting for any par- 
ticular good thing or against any particular evil is help- 
ing us. True, we are not enlisted under their banner, 
and are not subject to their orders, are not marching and 
fighting at their command. They are helping us, and we 
should approve and rejoice in any good they do, in any 
help they may lend us. We can go together just so long 
and so far as they go our way. We can fight together 
while they fight in any part our battles. 

Finally : We cannot afibrd to do or say anything that in 
any sense or any measure disparages or minimizes the 
church of God, and thereby dishonors our Leader. We 
should not expressly or by implication concede that the 
church of God is in any sense or measure insufficient, or 
that her divinely appointed means and instrumentalities 
are in any measure inefficient, for the purposes of their 
appointment. We should stand for the supreme author- 
ity of Christ. We are complete in him, who is over all 
principalities and powers, in heaven or on earth. We 
cannot be too careful here. We should stand for the 
church as God's appointment for the conversion and salva- 
tion of the world; as God's appointed and equipped army 
for the conquest of the world. With others than (Chris- 
tians we should fight only when they fight on our side — 
fight our battles. We should company with them only 
when they go our way. I confess I look with sonu^ dis- 
trust and fearful apprehensions upon the growing number 
of associations and societies in tlie churches. INIust we 
have an association — a Christian Association — for young 
men? What is the church of (uxl ? What is it for? Is 



302 bweeney's sermons. 

it not for Christian association ? Is it not a sufficient as- 
sociation for Christians? That is, I mean, is it not a 
sufficient Christian Association? But we are told we 
must have a Christian Association especially and exclu- 
sively for young men. I don't know but young men might 
better be associated with older ones, and all of them asso- 
ciated with w^omen, as in the church of God. And wx 
must also have a Christian Association for young women 
exclusively, we are told. I am a doubter. Then we 
must have Endeavor Societies for young people. But, I 
ask, is not the church an Endeavor Society? Is not that 
one of the objects of its existence in the world? If we are 
to organize and sustain a society for every special Chris- 
tian work, and for every sex and every age, what will be- 
come of the church? Who will be left in the church? 
Only a few very old men and w^omen, too old to work, or 
to associate, or even to endeavor, to die off in. Will it not 
become an old, useless, fallen-down, outside fence? Or, 
to speak of it as a plant — and it is a plant planted by the 
Lord — will not the societies suck the life out of it? I 
sucker my plants — that is, I pull the suckers off. 

I insist that it is not right for Christians to give their 
time and strength to the societies and neglect the church 
of God. These societies were not planted by our Lord, 
nor by his apostles. Think of the apostle Paul going from 
city to city organizing Y. P. C. E. S's, or Y. M. C. A's ! 
Paul did no such work, nor did any other aj)ostle. 

Now% please do not understand me as opposing any 
good work done by any of these societies. I rejoice in 
every good w ork that is done in the world. But what I 
mean is, that Christians do not need to spend their time 
and means organizing and fostering such societies. The 
church of God is spiritual house enough for us to live in, 



A PLEA FOR THE CHURCH OF GOB. 308 

temple enough for us to worship in, vineyard enough for 
us to work in, husbandry enough for us to tend, building 
enough for us to work on, army enough for us to march, 
drill and fight in. People who are contending, as they 
say, for primitive Christianity, for New Testament Chris- 
tianity, should stand for the church of the New Testament, 
and leave others to spend their time on human societies, 
if they cannot be persuaded to do better. 

Where we go into and foster these religious societies, 
with their pledges and constitutions, we do it in the teeth of 
our fathers who proposed to return to the Christianity and 
the church of the New Testament, and by our action endorse 
the creed principle, and thus condemn ourselves in the 
the thing which we allow. Instead of strengthening the 
young people among us in opposition to creeds and par- 
ties, and in their faith in the all-sufficiency of the New 
Testament as the rule of faith and practice for the people 
of God, we are breaking down in their estimation that 
for which we and our fathers have contended and tried to 
build up. We are educating our children for sectarianism. 

Preachers of the restoration, who are, or who profess to 
be, contending for primitive Christianity, for that pure 
Christianity and church of the New Testament, will find, 
when it is too late perhaps, that when they are going over 
the country organizing Christian Associations and Chris- 
tian Endeavors, and teaching our young people how 
necessary they are, they are pulling down that which our 
fathers labored to build up, and which they may think 
they are building up. 

To repeat what I have said : 

First. Members of the church of (rod should be careful 
to oppose no good work being done either by individuals 
or societies. Every good work is in the line of our work, 
and will be a help. While we may not be able to aj)prove 
all the methods of outside individuals or societies, we 
should not put ourselves in any such attitude as can fairly 
be construed into opposition to any good work. Lot any- 
body cast out demons. Let anybody fight the evils of the 
day. Let anybody do good without opposition from us. 



304 Sweeney's sermons. 

Second. Church members can show their sympathy 
with and approval of every good work. We can as citi- 
zens vote with such parties as are advocating good meas- 
ures without belonging to such parties or endorsing all 
their methods. We can, under our own banner, fight 
with all who are fighting against evil. We can go with 
and co-operate with all who are going our way and work- 
ing our work. 

Third. We cannot afford to say or do anything that im- 
plies even the necessity, so far as we are concerned, of any 
organization or society of a religious character other than 
the church of God. It is enough for us. It is all we 
need. We are complete in Jesus Christ and his church. 
We should stand in and for the church. We should 
work in and by the church. We should honor the Head 
of the church. We should not go out to work, but work 
in the church. *'To the intent that now unto the princi- 
palities and powers in the heavenly places might be made 
known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, 
according to the purpose of the ages which he purposed 
in Christ Jesus our Lord.'' Only thus can we heed the 
teaching of the apostle, *^ Whatsoever ye do in word or 
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks 
to God the Father through him." 

For my own part, while I rejoice in all the good I see 
accortiplished by the many religious parties and associa- 
tions and societies, I have settled the question that the 
church of God is religious society enough for me ; I or- 
ganize no other Christian Associations for young or old, 
male or female. I have no time or energy to spend build- 
ing up any other Christian Endeavor Societies. 

" I love thy church, oh God, 

Her walls before thee stand, 
Dear as the apple of thine eye, 

And graven on thy hand. 
For her my tears shall fall, 

For her my prayers ascend, 
To her my care and toils be given, 

'Till toils and cares shall end.'* 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 032 351 8 



